Certain someone once said that UFOPedia et al and Battlescape "Cannot ever be mixed". So much for that, lol :)

Well, the battlescape/inventory below the UFOpedia window switches palette so it looks weird. I guess that's what that someone wanted to say. For me, it's a very minor nuisance... it doesn't even look that bad. And once you open an article, background switches to complete black anyway.

Any chance of figuring out how to change armor by r-clicking on a person (the another "impossible thing")? :)

Do you mean changing soldier's armor directly in the Inventory screen by clicking on the paperdoll (or by a hotkey)?I can look at that... shouldn't be too hard... might suffer the palette problem though... which I wouldn't mind.Also, I guess that should work only when Inventory is opened during pre-mission equipment, right? :P

Do you mean changing soldier's armor directly in the Inventory screen by clicking on the paperdoll (or by a hotkey)?I can look at that... shouldn't be too hard... might suffer the palette problem though... which I wouldn't mind.

Yes, exactly. And I don't mind palette problems either, compared to vast interface improvement. The way you have to do it now... It's pain.

*eagerly awaits Soldier Diaries to track kills/stuns and all that awesome stuff and for the eventual Pirate Commendations/Awards*

This is definitely incredibly work for any mod and any player, ESPECIALLY for new players coming into the game (people are still actually trying out OpenXcom and experiencing 1996 X-Com/TFTD for the first time!), more so for total conversion mods when people haven't memorized everything (or can't because there's 4 different types of ammo for weapons that may do something differently).

*eagerly awaits Soldier Diaries to track kills/stuns and all that awesome stuff and for the eventual Pirate Commendations/Awards*

This is definitely incredibly work for any mod and any player, ESPECIALLY for new players coming into the game (people are still actually trying out OpenXcom and experiencing 1996 X-Com/TFTD for the first time!), more so for total conversion mods when people haven't memorized everything (or can't because there's 4 different types of ammo for weapons that may do something differently).

Hehehe, yes, only then. Unless the only option available in-battle was to take the armor off completely :)

I did it only when in base (you can open the armor selection GUI by hotkey for "Abort mission", usually "A"). In battlescape, it does nothing.

Btw. I hacked it pretty ugly, so I would appreciate if somebody could test it, if it doesn't crash under various circumstances (e.g. multiple bases, multiple craft in bases, including wounded soldiers, anything else you can think of...).

I will upload a new version today in the evening (before 20:00 CET), after I implement some more features.

Meridian, I know this question could be uncomfortable, but are you planning to update this branch whenever Yankes releases a new version? Unless he incorporates it in the OXCE, but I don't expect it at this point.

Meridian, I know this question could be uncomfortable, but are you planning to update this branch whenever Yankes releases a new version? Unless he incorporates it in the OXCE, but I don't expect it at this point.

Yes, my changes are mostly in the very stable part of the source code, so it should be very easy to update once OXCE 3.0 is out.I will continue doing it at least during the duration of the X-PirateZ LP (cca 2 years? :) ). After that... too early to say.

EDIT: upgrade to Visual Studio 2015 (required for OXCE 3.0+) might be a small problem, but somebody will for sure help me with the (potential) compiling issues.

EDIT2: added myk002's manufacturing profitability with one improvement... if the number has only one significant digit (e.g. +$2M) then show one more digit after decimal point (e.g. +$2.7M)... because it makes a big difference if I make 1.0 or 1.9 million from my alcohol trading ;-)

I'm sure it happens to you too... all the time. You had a bad month, or missed a terror mission and suddenly UFO activity increased to 10x the usual value... and all your charts are completely useless because all the important information is cramped in a few pixels, because of a single big spike.

Well, now you can select the scaling of the charts manually.Possible options:1/ 0 to 90 (or -10 to 80 if there is at least one negative value)2/ 0 to 180 (or -20 to 160)4/ 0 to 360 (or -40 to 320)8/ 0 to 720 (or -80 to 640)16/ 0 to 1440 (or -160 to 1280)

If you don't select anything, the automatically calculated scale is applied as usual.

Finally useful charts! :D

PS: one example attached (same situation, 3 different scalings)... it's not the best example (I don't have a save with a big spike right now), but you get the idea...

I am not very good with GitHub, last time I made a PR, it took me several hours and few attempts.

I wanted to prepare and publish Git patch files instead.Maybe you can then publish them in a separate branch of your depo... that way it would be even on one place. OK?

I can always help you with publishing to github. And for repo I think it would be better if you fork my repo. With this you will have full control on it and publishing will be one click for new visual studio (AFAIK vs2015 update 1 have plugin for that). And this will be still in one place. GitHub track all forks and show in one page:https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/networkYou can easy find all forks and commits of openxcom (and it will be better if your contribution would be under your name not mine).

Of coarse git was design that you can send your changes by mail, publishing combined patch will be fine too.

Thanks Meridian for all the hard work you have put into this. I've been really enjoying your customizations to the project. Do you think you also put up the zips containing your static smoke, custom music, and StatStrings? You may also consider putting a link to Dioxine's post about the barbershop to help new people find it easier.I've been making my own custom stat strings but I'm more curious about your ranges for them all.Thanks again! I look forward to more of your LP and updates!

v2015-12-26 + added column displaying "dynamic" stats (the one selected in combobox) on: * Vessels > Crew screen * Hands on Deck screen + added kneel indicator (inspired by PR from DreamThorn, but only did a cheap version without dedicated sprites) + added more info to Alien Containment GUI (if live alien sale is enabled) - restored back Multi-level view in Battlescape, UFopedia can be opened by hotkey (hotkey for UFOpedia, usually "U")

These are all features I wanted to implement ... I have a few more days though, can anyone think of a small but usable improvement I could do next?

The only thing I was thinking about is like the kneel indicator, but for short units (that you might lose sight of behind a wall). Attack dogs come to mind, and even enemy guard dogs. I know you haven't really been playing with dogs in your LP like you did with FMP, but its something to consider. :)

I like this one. But I assume it requires adding new resources (the bitmap file), which makes it a bit less convenient to use, since it requires its own minimod or something. Still, I'll vote for this.

The only thing I was thinking about is like the kneel indicator, but for short units (that you might lose sight of behind a wall). Attack dogs come to mind, and even enemy guard dogs. I know you haven't really been playing with dogs in your LP like you did with FMP, but its something to consider. :)

And what exactly should be done? I somehow missed the request in your sentence.

Yes, I will upload all mods when I get back home. I don't have access to them right now.

Great! Thanks very much.It also appears to me that you are using a worksheet or something to help you figure out what is best melee and ranged weapons for the gals to use. Would you mind sharing that as well? I would find it very interesting as well.Thanks again!

What, exactly, is now shown? Not sure if I understand this, or at least I don't understand what your intention was...

Assume your soldier has 100 firing accuracy and 100 health.Assume the soldier loses 99 hp and now has only 1 hp.

The Unit Info screen (battlescape) will show you that remaining firing accuracy is 1 .... whereas it is actually around 75.

The chance to hit in the Action UI will correctly show you about 75% of the chance you had before injury ... which doesn't make sense when the other GUI shows you have remaining accuracy of 1. It is nothing game breaking... but for 20 years everytime I saw that my soldier has just 1 firing accuracy, I never even bothered to check the chance to hit, because I thought it would be around 0%... but that is definitely not the case... even losing almost all hitpoints costs you in worst case only 25% of your accuracy. So, it is actually worth using even soldiers close to death... which is something I learned only yesterday (thanks to a viewers comment on youtube and confirmed by Warboy) after 20 years... because of this glitch.

There are of course other bonuses and penalties... but they don't have such impact.

v2015-12-29 + added primed grenade indicator to Hand UI (not animated) + added 2-handed weapon indicator to Hand UI + display recovery time when soldier is wounded (directly in the list) + added hotkey to de-equip armor from all soldiers at once in Equip Armor GUI (key for clear inventory, usually "X") + added hotkey to de-assign all soldiers from all craft at once in Equip Crew GUI (key for clear inventory, usually "X")

Awesome!:) It is known as 'Special' damage in the Pedia, but unknown works too. It is used by a few certain enemis and items, the only one you know by now is the battle flag. 'Charm' would be too specific to call it, but not too off from what it is.

Hi, Thanks again for all these great improvements. I'm a little confused on how to update the avatars in this version? I've tried various things from the inventory in equip vessel screen and while on battlescape but I haven't gotten it to work yet. How do I use this new feature?Thanks!

Hi, Thanks again for all these great improvements. I'm a little confused on how to update the avatars in this version? I've tried various things from the inventory in equip vessel screen and while on battlescape but I haven't gotten it to work yet. How do I use this new feature?Thanks!

Ooops sorry.The hotkey is "M" (or anything you have bound to "Minimap" hotkey).

PS: it works only when the soldier is in the base (i.e. not on a mission)

As far as I see in the code, there are no borders for the avatar (it is actually a 320x200 surface, i.e. fullscreen).I could hard-code some coordinates... but it would probably not work well with different resolutions and aspect ratios...

As far as I see in the code, there are no borders for the avatar (it is actually a 320x200 surface, i.e. fullscreen).I could hard-code some coordinates... but it would probably not work well with different resolutions and aspect ratios...

Ok, no problem.

I was also talking to another friend of mine, who I've recently introduced XCOM to, and he was trying to equip soldiers by right-clicking them in the soldier list. What do you think about this? On some level it makes sense to me, but then again what do you do when then soldier isn't assigned to a craft?

I was also talking to another friend of mine, who I've recently introduced XCOM to, and he was trying to equip soldiers by right-clicking them in the soldier list. What do you think about this? On some level it makes sense to me, but then again what do you do when then soldier isn't assigned to a craft?

I personally don't miss such a feature, but if more people ask for it, I can do it.

This is already in. You can animate stuff and you can also animate it with different starting frames if you make multiple MCDs.

And that's exactly the point, Volutar suggested a way to avoid syncing without making more MCDs (which really isn't an option, since MCD number is limited). I was asking about using the currently unused byte for telling the engine to start with a random frame, sorry for not being clear.

v2016-01-05 + now properly equipping also fixed items when changing armor in the Inventory... I would appreciate if somebody helped me test this some more + merged SupSuper's code fixing problems with Graphs when there are more than 16 countries (wrong total, wrong colors, wrong values, etc.), more info here: https://openxcom.org/bugs/openxcom/issues/1148 * BIG thanks to SupSuper! + added hotkey to open Inventory from Craft Equipment (same as in battlescape, usually "I") + fixed the Apply inventory template button... which I accidentally broke yesterday ;-)

I would really appreciate that. I have tested all of them, but (most probably) not all the cases. There are features in OXC/OXCE, which I don't even know about and forgot to consider them... like the last case with the fixed items on armors (e.g. Nurse outfit, Alliance advisor or even a dog)... but that should be fixed with today's version.

Yay! Second post has statstrings, static smoke, and music now!Thanks for adding this so soon!I found your statstring settings really interesting! I added 'T' and 't' for throwing skill with same ranges as firing skill for 'M' and 'm'. I'm curious why you didn't have a throwing accuracy statstring already since all the bow usage? Did you find that throwing weapons fall off and everyone should go for guns, is it that throwing skill is easy to train with tossing flares that you didn't have to worry about it, or something else I'm not thinking off?

I thin I've written it somewhere already but can't find it now, so I'll repeat here.

Would it be possible to make beer, rum etc. consumable items? What I mean is that if you drink all the charges, you shouldn't get all your bottle back in the base; you should just lose it and buy or brew a new one. If you have some partially finished bottles, the remaining content should combine to form as many full bottles as possible, exactly like ammo.Actually, medikits and bandages should follow the same mechanics... In vanilla it is assumed that you can simply replenish their content in base, but in Piratez it's not so trivial.

Another but related thing about drinkable stuff is that it's weird that the bottles are clearly divided into three parts (healing, painkillers and stimulation). It would be more natural if each sip gave you all three effects at once (or two, if some component is not present).

So Meridian, do you think it can be done? I know it's probably not trivial, but I think it's dearly needed.

EDIT:

One more thing: would it be possible to have a filtering system in the Craft/Equipment screen? Like displaying only weapons, or maybe even only melee weapons, or perhaps even only one-handed weapons? This would be really handy for example whenever I am looking for a pistol for my melee warrior and it's hard to see what we have, especially when I have tons of stuff (or doing tests in Quick Battle).

I thin I've written it somewhere already but can't find it now, so I'll repeat here.

Would it be possible to make beer, rum etc. consumable items? What I mean is that if you drink all the charges, you shouldn't get all your bottle back in the base; you should just lose it and buy or brew a new one. If you have some partially finished bottles, the remaining content should combine to form as many full bottles as possible, exactly like ammo.Actually, medikits and bandages should follow the same mechanics... In vanilla it is assumed that you can simply replenish their content in base, but in Piratez it's not so trivial.

Another but related thing about drinkable stuff is that it's weird that the bottles are clearly divided into three parts (healing, painkillers and stimulation). It would be more natural if each sip gave you all three effects at once (or two, if some component is not present).

So Meridian, do you think it can be done? I know it's probably not trivial, but I think it's dearly needed.

EDIT:

One more thing: would it be possible to have a filtering system in the Craft/Equipment screen? Like displaying only weapons, or maybe even only melee weapons, or perhaps even only one-handed weapons? This would be really handy for example whenever I am looking for a pistol for my melee warrior and it's hard to see what we have, especially when I have tons of stuff (or doing tests in Quick Battle).

I think consumable medikit probably more appropriate to my branch than Meridian. Soon I will start again taking requests because I'm finishing scripting (99% done). After that I could look on that.

I think I've written it somewhere already but can't find it now, so I'll repeat here.

1/ Would it be possible to make beer, rum etc. consumable items? What I mean is that if you drink all the charges, you shouldn't get all your bottle back in the base; you should just lose it and buy or brew a new one. If you have some partially finished bottles, the remaining content should combine to form as many full bottles as possible, exactly like ammo.Actually, medikits and bandages should follow the same mechanics... In vanilla it is assumed that you can simply replenish their content in base, but in Piratez it's not so trivial.

2/ Another but related thing about drinkable stuff is that it's weird that the bottles are clearly divided into three parts (healing, painkillers and stimulation). It would be more natural if each sip gave you all three effects at once (or two, if some component is not present).

3/ So Meridian, do you think it can be done? I know it's probably not trivial, but I think it's dearly needed.

1/ Yes, making medikit-type items consumable is possible and quite a good idea for piratez.

2/ All 3 effects by drinking alcohol is also easily doable... but doesn't make too much sense to me. You drink alcohol for pain killer and for energy recovery, but you pour it on the wound when you want to heal. So at least these two are clearly separate, no? As for pain killer and energy/stun recovery, we could think about it... but honestly, who ever uses pain killers...? I guess we can just happily ignore them...

3/ It can be done. I guess it would take me between 4 and 10 hours, including testing. However, since this would not have any immediate use for anyone, I would need to know that sombody is actually planning to use it in their mod... so far only xpiratez is using oxce, so the question goes directly to dioxine I guess. I will not implement any features until I know for sure that they will be used. 4-10 hours may seem like nothing, but I value my time a lot.

One more thing: would it be possible to have a filtering system in the Craft/Equipment screen? Like displaying only weapons, or maybe even only melee weapons, or perhaps even only one-handed weapons? This would be really handy for example whenever I am looking for a pistol for my melee warrior and it's hard to see what we have, especially when I have tons of stuff (or doing tests in Quick Battle).

Yes, that's a great idea... I also had it in the back of my head, but somehow it didn't pop up. I will put it on my todo list.

I think consumable medikit probably more appropriate to my branch than Meridian. Soon I will start again taking requests because I'm finishing scripting (99% done). After that I could look on that.

Say, would your scripting stuff allow for scriptable weapon actions?Like a "weapon" that has an action that causes arbitrary stat changes potentially with arbitrary 'status effects' that last for a set amount of time?An arbitrary example would be a potion of vitalization that restored 10 hp up to max outside of the status effect, and gave str+5 tu+10 stamina+20 for 4 turns.

This has been brought to you by the Ministry of Arbitrary Questions about Arbitrary Concepts.

Exactly, when I will add script events on bullet hits (and some "buffs") you could do that. But this will not be available on beginning.First thing that you can be able to do will be recoloring of unit sprites (it can look like christmas tree if you want) and switch graphic parts of sprite as you fit (image flying armor that have moving wings when in air, or simply more torsos instead only male and female).

2/ All 3 effects by drinking alcohol is also easily doable... but doesn't make too much sense to me. You drink alcohol for pain killer and for energy recovery, but you pour it on the wound when you want to heal. So at least these two are clearly separate, no?

Hmm... I thought it was used both internally and externally, it's magical rum after all. :) Frankly, I don't know, you can be right. We need Dioxine to have a final say.

3/ It can be done. I guess it would take me between 4 and 10 hours, including testing. However, since this would not have any immediate use for anyone, I would need to know that sombody is actually planning to use it in their mod... so far only xpiratez is using oxce, so the question goes directly to dioxine I guess. I will not implement any features until I know for sure that they will be used. 4-10 hours may seem like nothing, but I value my time a lot.

No, I agree, it's not a trivial amount of time. :) X-Com Files will use OXCE too, and I think it highly probable that it'll be used somehow, but I have no particular plan yet.

Exactly, when I will add script events on bullet hits (and some "buffs") you could do that. But this will not be available on beginning.First thing that you can be able to do will be recoloring of unit sprites (it can look like christmas tree if you want) and switch graphic parts of sprite as you fit (image flying armor that have moving wings when in air, or simply more torsos instead only male and female).

Does it mean we can assign random sprites to units, or at least random colours to their parts (like currently with skin/hair)?

An arbitrary example would be a potion of vitalization that restored 10 hp up to max outside of the status effect, and gave str+5 tu+10 stamina+20 for 4 turns.

Hope not, it's useless to me (as it'd force the player to juggle potions like an idiot instead of fighting) and due to complexity, burden OXCE with endless bugs that'd disrupt the currently working mechanism.

Does it mean we can assign random sprites to units, or at least random colours to their parts (like currently with skin/hair)?

You will be able choose any body part graphic for any body part in current unit PCK file. You will get index of current body part graphic and you will return any index you want (it can be outside of standard set).And for color, you will get current pixel color, current shade, what body part it belong to, unit and its data, animation counter. What you will do with it is up to you.You can take race/gender of unit and change result color based on this or not if you want. Now some sneak peek (this is my test case to see if I don't break my own code):

Hope not, it's useless to me (as it'd force the player to juggle potions like an idiot instead of fighting) and due to complexity, burden OXCE with endless bugs that'd disrupt the currently working mechanism.

That's a pretty shortsighted reply. o_OStatus effects have been a core of TBS games for a while due to it being such an interesting mechanic to work with.Juggling drugs like a retard is a balance issue more than anything; you wouldn't be juggling them if they were both tactically valueable and very scarce, nor if they lasted a very long time.

Not to mention the potential of permanent negative side-effects.. Hehehe.

That's a pretty shortsighted reply. o_OStatus effects have been a core of TBS games for a while due to it being such an interesting mechanic to work with.Juggling drugs like a retard is a balance issue more than anything; you wouldn't be juggling them if they were both tactically valueable and very scarce, nor if they lasted a very long time.

Not to mention the potential of permanent negative side-effects.. Hehehe.

Not as much short sighted as selfish, if anything.

I've been playing games for 30 years and modding them for 20. I know my sh*t and I know what I'm talking about. Played hundreds of games with f*cking status effect potions and hated them every time, unless the boost was a major one (think Diablo altars) and the potions very rare. However, X-Com is a game with manufacturing so, there is no chance in hell the potions will be rare. So stat modifiers yes, but not in the battlescape. F*ck, I want body augmentations to be a thing at some point. Just no magic potions.

So yeah, spending entire turns drinking potions so you can get some slight edge in combat? F*ck that, not in my mod. That'd mean I'd have to balance the game with potions in mind, so not using potions would be a dumb choice, and a choice between dumb and tedious is a very bad choice. So I am selfish in a sense that I will not use such mechanics (well, I would to some degree if they were there, but I don't need them per se) and still get all the bugs that always come with features.

Otoh the thing Yankes is doing now is immensely useful, as it would, for example, finally allow night vision to be playable.

Oh but I'm just asking out of morbid curiosity.Getting the potential of some real Sword & Sorcery with spells and all that jizz all up in the xcom engine would be great.

In another game, sure. "Fantasy X-Com" has been a thing on this forum for a long time, there's some resources made (by Luke83 I believe), so it could be nice if designed well.

But I think a better solution for Piratez would be item bonuses, like: +10 Accuracy when in hand.

EDIT: Meridian, after some testing I think while the green enemy markers are great, it would be better if they didn't blink. Blinking normally signifies IMMEDIATE DANGER in games (and other machine), and on an enemy that is not nearby it is confusing since it stirs wrong instincts in the player's mind. So I think it would be better if they were just flat green squares, even though they wouldn't look as awesome.

@MeridianHaving tested these improvements a bit, I find them great, and no bugs so far. But I'd like some changes to be optional... the ones I found controversial:

- Production profitability view (I like it but things like these are generally optional);- Execution (my ire is it always kills the target, that's why I want it to be optional, but otoh it is a nice improvement);- Item Handeness display (it's useful but a bit superfluous to me, since I see handeness on the battlesprite, so I vote for optional);- Light background on the minimap (I personally prefer the original, black one for the immersion; both options should be possible).

Also:- I agree with solar that the green indicators shouldn't be blinking. - We could also improve the kneel display but I don't know how yet (the current indicator is okay but I think it could be better).- The avatar toggle should support all 128 possible avatars, not just 32 (I already have further 16 ready for the next release).

And the final request would be for the .exe to be standalone, with these dlls integrated, if it is possible - it'd be much cleaner and easier to upgrade/switch versions.

EDIT: Meridian, after some testing I think while the green enemy markers are great, it would be better if they didn't blink. Blinking normally signifies IMMEDIATE DANGER in games (and other machine), and on an enemy that is not nearby it is confusing since it stirs wrong instincts in the player's mind. So I think it would be better if they were just flat green squares, even though they wouldn't look as awesome.

@MeridianHaving tested these improvements a bit, I find them great, and no bugs so far. But I'd like some changes to be optional... the ones I found controversial:

- Production profitability view (I like it but things like these are generally optional);- Execution (my ire is it always kills the target, that's why I want it to be optional, but otoh it is a nice improvement);- Item Handeness display (it's useful but a bit superfluous to me, since I see handeness on the battlesprite, so I vote for optional);- Light background on the minimap (I personally prefer the original, black one for the immersion; both options should be possible).

Also:- I agree with solar that the green indicators shouldn't be blinking. - We could also improve the kneel display but I don't know how yet (the current indicator is okay but I think it could be better).- The avatar toggle should support all 128 possible avatars, not just 32 (I already have further 16 ready for the next release).

And the final request would be for the .exe to be standalone, with these dlls integrated, if it is possible - it'd be much cleaner and easier to upgrade/switch versions.

1/ production profitability is already in vanilla (few days ago) so with next bigger update it will not be my code at all2/ all features you mentioned can be made optional, see more info about it below... for now i will make those you mentioned3/ there is a much better kneel indicator here: https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/pull/1056 -- I can just include this one, but you will have to add additional sprites and ruleset into piratez... I don't want to distribute such things myself4/ how would the avatar toggle work then? a list with 128 options seems too much...5/ I don't know how to make a standalone EXE, but Yankes promised to help with that

In general my plan is to:1/ make a video with description of all features from 2.5b+2/ ask SupSuper/Warboy what can I PR into vanilla (with/without advanced option)3/ merge what I can into vanilla4/ ask Yankes what I can merge into OXCE 3.0 (with/without advanced option)5/ merge what I can into OXCE 3.06/ keep the rest in my branch

Also, I won't be doing PRs before they are actually approved first... I don't have time to waste.Also, before merging, I would do proper support for translations, TFTD, and all that jazz... which is not there at the moment.

Thanks for the great .exe mod. The quality of life features, all bundled into one package, has been very useful.

Inventory from virtually anywhere and *any* kneeling indicator is worth it alone. Especially when you abuse smoke grenades as much as I do. Little things like the playfield area indicator are nice too.

Here's hoping they roll pretty much the entire mod into oXc vanilla, so everyone else gets to use these great features as well. But if they don't, you've made my life easier, by far.

Keep up the good work, and thanks again for all the effort you've put into this.

I'm following your LP and rather enjoying it, even if your tactics are massively different to mine.

Now, off to train my wiki-fu. How can exploding cannonballs for the assault cannon not be on there? They are one of the most Piratez'y things ever (and probably the best artillery in the game, for the price). 3-4 cannons destroy almost anything, from almost anywhere, for a cost your gals can afford. Think of them as bows for real women. Never waste time training throwing again :)

3/ there is a much better kneel indicator here: https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/pull/1056 -- I can just include this one, but you will have to add additional sprites and ruleset into piratez... I don't want to distribute such things myself

For that I would suggest(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/63152810/n/xcom/CROUCH.gif)this over-the-top button from earlier that will absolutely stick out in the interface.

3/ there is a much better kneel indicator here: https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/pull/1056 -- I can just include this one, but you will have to add additional sprites and ruleset into piratez... I don't want to distribute such things myself4/ how would the avatar toggle work then? a list with 128 options seems too much...

I will include the button (preferably the one in the commit, as it looks non-invasive), if you tell me exactly what to do :)As for the avatars - firstly, a list of 128 items is not a biggie; secondly, frankly there is no choice as OXCE supports up to 128 avatars - unless you'd make the list length auto-detect the number of avatar variants, or make it ruleset-definiable...

Thanks - great work. I didnt mind the blinking. I guess the demands of the many override the few. The green indicator is really useful. At times in easier maps I like to keep one soldier in sight of the stunned personnel. I no longer need to cycle through each soldier to find if a stunned enemy is awake - now I just looked out for the green.

New version is up.Some testing for the new accuracy training would be appreciated.

v2016-01-12 + Rebalanced throwing and firing accuracy training, more info here: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4220.msg57516.html#msg57516 + Added support for custom kneeling indicator, more info here: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4187.msg57501.html#msg57501 + Unseen (ufopedia/research/manufacture) indicators now work also in debug mode + Enhanced movement methods * when holding SHIFT while selecting target tile... the unit will walk/run there WITHOUT stopping when it spots an enemy * shift is usually a hotkey for "select previous unit"... so you will have to remove that hotkey in Options in order to use this new feature

+ Enhanced movement methods * when holding SHIFT while selecting target tile... the unit will walk/run there WITHOUT stopping when it spots an enemy * shift is usually a hotkey for "select previous unit"... so you will have to remove that hotkey in Options in order to use this new feature

Flamer and prod group run-ins just got all the more convenient. Thanks.

I just wanted to randomly thank you, Meridian, all your improvements really give my (and any OXCE) mod a new life :)

Much appreciated.I would have a favour to ask, if you have some spare time.

I am still going through that experience training stuff and I need to do a lot of testing/debugging... it is however taking forever to load PirateZ in debug mode (literally 10+ minutes). Would you be able to extract some weapons from piratez and make them a standalone mod pack for xcom1 for me for testing purposes?

Found two issues:1. flamethrower flasks... they are only displayed in long range flamer, not normal flamer... can't fix that, item (the flask) can be only in one category2. fusion torch flask... also displayed in long range... I will fix that this week

Anyway 3 questions:a/ Rope doesnt seem to work (game crashes), could you have a look?b/ While debugging I found support for melee weapons with ammo... are you aware of any such weapons in any mod?c/ Please add Battle Flag too... btw. what should using that train?

All in all, I think I have a better understanding of the mechanics and will be able to implement also throwing training on actual grenade (explosion) hit; rather than only throw itself.It will take me a few days though...

PS: fun fact... I didn't test it, but it looks like you cannot train firing on mind controlled aliens; but you can train melee on them ;-)

a) Probably misplaced/missing hit sound or hit anim, deleting these should allow the rope to work. Handob, bigob and floorob work.b) Yeah, tried those, they do work, but make little sense to me due to how magazines are/were handled (use 1 charge, lose magazine - even if the magazine has unlimited uses). I don't have any working code on hand, though.c) When I have the time, rather not today. About training... This brings up another special case altogether. I guess any weapons that are using Special damage should train Psi Skill, but only if the soldier has been screened. Same should go for any weapon that uses psi skill or power for damage formula (not accuracy... I think?). This should override all other cases.

Training melee on MCed aliens seems to be a bug... But I guess eliminating abuses is simply impossible. Oh and make sure coup de grace doesn't train anything by accident :)

I am taking a break, this one was a tough cookie.Any help with testing is appreciated... although I think I tested all possible combinations.Everytime I close my eyes I see a yellow "+1" in front of me.

You can either include it (toggle kneel button) as a standard mod for piratez, see attached... or integrate it directly into piratez.I've added support for it into my build... download will be available later in the evening.

Not sure I want the upgrade to the newest nightly, I have a feeling that Sup's upgrades will say something along "we've found 20,000 files with slightly wrong palette, so far it only affected OSX users, but now they'll be f*cked up on any system, have a nice day." (so funny, the standards for moddersthird parties are now so high that the OG failed to meet them) :)

Not sure I want the upgrade to the newest nightly, I have a feeling that Sup's upgrades will say something along "we've found 20,000 files with slightly wrong palette, so far it only affected OSX users, but now they'll be f*cked up on any system, have a nice day." (so funny, the standards for moddersthird parties are now so high that the OG failed to meet them) :)

Well, we'll see after it happens.

But as a developer I have to agree with them, there's just too many bug reports and more checks and standards are unavoidable to keep their sanity in one piece.Too bad it didn't come earlier though.

If you're saying that as a professional developer, meaning enterprise working on a for-profit basis, I absolutely agree. And that precisely what's bugging me, since OXC, being an open-source project, isn't a for-profit enterprise. I was unsettled by Sup using business language, and suggesting modders are some third-party contributors (just like the relationship between Steam and game devs). We're not. That's not how open source works IMO. The compatibility of my mod with this or that platform should be my own responsibility, not an enforced requirement. At least in an open-source model. Making a mod I am working for my personal reasons. If these personal reasons do not involve extra work neeeded to support non-PC platforms, I have 2 choices: do work for free just to support OXC team (which I'm not ruling out, to be clear), or quit. It's not some sense of entitlement, as someone could suggest if they wanted to prove I'm just a whining kid, but a cold calculation.

If this is turning to a for-profit enterprise, sure thing, it's their choice, nothing wrong with doing business, but AFAIK nobody was presented with any contract to sign, which is a bad business practice, to say the least. Of course to make any business on OXC, you need the rights to the XCOM franchise, and that's where Firaxis enters the picture. In the end, it is them who have everyone by the balls, because, let's be serious, what normal person would dare to risk a lawsuit from Firaxis.

Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe these are just products of my imagination, but I'm just voicing my private opinion here, that's it. A private, independent opinion of someone who supports hacker movement, posted here only on the grounds of freedom of speech, without the intention of besmirching, insulting or attacking anyone.

I don't think OXC is turning into anything even remotely for-profit, ever.Also, I think 99.7% of your assets will still work after the upgrade... and if not... well, we can just revert the change that caused the incompatibility (either in OXCE or my my fork) and everything will be as previously again. No need to panic ;-)

Also, I think 99.7% of your assets will still work after the upgrade... and if not... well, we can just revert the change that caused the incompatibility (either in OXCE or my my fork) and everything will be as previously again. No need to panic ;-)

I can confirm that, didn't had any issues with own Mod. But i took care of Gif's and unproperly aligned palettes in all graphics of my Mod a while ago so :>

Yeah, just wanted to make myself clear. And it's good to hear the incompatibility issues aren't, actually, that serious. I can always ask Hellrazor for the 'more proper' palettes anyway and write a macro to do the change in bulk while cursing quietly 'they did it again' (I was through this once already, 2 years ago or so, when OXC team suddenly decided battescape color #15 cannot be used - but back then I had like, 1% of resources I have now). I'm mainly afraid because I didn't give a damn if the palette is arbitralily proper or not, only if the game displays it properly or not, and I dare anyone to find a display error in my resources. We'll see how it goes :)

I think I've written it somewhere already but can't find it now, so I'll repeat here.

1/ Would it be possible to make beer, rum etc. consumable items? What I mean is that if you drink all the charges, you shouldn't get all your bottle back in the base; you should just lose it and buy or brew a new one. If you have some partially finished bottles, the remaining content should combine to form as many full bottles as possible, exactly like ammo.Actually, medikits and bandages should follow the same mechanics... In vanilla it is assumed that you can simply replenish their content in base, but in Piratez it's not so trivial.

2/ Another but related thing about drinkable stuff is that it's weird that the bottles are clearly divided into three parts (healing, painkillers and stimulation). It would be more natural if each sip gave you all three effects at once (or two, if some component is not present).

3/ So Meridian, do you think it can be done? I know it's probably not trivial, but I think it's dearly needed.

1/ Done, all medikit-type items can be consumable now by adding a flag to ruleset "isConsumable: true". Each component (pain killer, stim, heal) is counted separately, they don't mix!

Example:Vodka has 5 pain killers and 5 heals.a/ If you use 2 pain killers from 7 vodkas and 1 heal from 4 vodkas... you have spent 14 pain killers and 4 heals. Which totals to 3 used vodkas together.b/ If you use 3 pain killers and 3 heals... it's only one used vodka.

2/ This was not done... I don't like it. Would work for alcohol, but doesn't work for medi-kits...

3/ Download will be available later in the evening... I hope that modders, which decide to use this feature will decrease the cost accordingly.

Interesting! Finally, bandages etc. can be much more realistic (and in realistic prices, without paying premium for 'magic'). Damn you Meridian, I have so many healing items, I have to do so much work again! :)The thing that gripes me is that once medkits work realistically, the problem of 'magic' alcohol, and 3-in-one bottles ('drink with the left mouth corner to heal, right corner to stimulate and trough a straw for painkiller') will be glaring as heck. I think I will make all alcohol single-type healing item then (just like crack or smokes), and add all extras by the magic of OXCE. Example: Basically, Rum will be wound-healing only, but I will make it to also restore stamina, stun and morale as a secondary effect.

1. behaviour change for fixed builtInWeapons:- if they're battletype 0 (none), do not equip them in hand, but in an inventory slot, just like they were non-fixed builtInWeapons. Why? You can eg. replace backpack space on a flying armor with a fixed jetpack sprite, block some slots in "sexy" outfits (instead of the convoluted weight system used now), replace backpack with an ammo pack if an armor has fixed minigun etc. I think it is very cool as allows for more variation in outfits, and much, much easier than trying to mod Inventories on a per-armor basis.

2. Akimbo shooting!Not that much for myself, but I know many people would love to fire pistols from both hands.- You need to have an one-handed, battletype 1, non-arcing weapon in each hand;- Only firing options that are present in both weapons are available (Snap, Aim, Auto)- TU cost is 67% compared to TU cost of both attacks combined;- both attacks receive -40% accuracy penalty- Execution - not sure, hotkey???

1. behaviour change for fixed builtInWeapons:- if they're battletype 0 (none), do not equip them in hand, but in an inventory slot, just like they were non-fixed builtInWeapons. Why? You can eg. replace backpack space on a flying armor with a fixed jetpack sprite, block some slots in "sexy" outfits (instead of the convoluted weight system used now), replace backpack with an ammo pack if an armor has fixed minigun etc. I think it is very cool as allows for more variation in outfits, and much, much easier than trying to mod Inventories on a per-armor basis.

2. Akimbo shooting!Not that much for myself, but I know many people would love to fire pistols from both hands.- You need to have an one-handed, battletype 1, non-arcing weapon in each hand;- Only firing options that are present in both weapons are available (Snap, Aim, Auto)- TU cost is 67% compared to TU cost of both attacks combined;- both attacks receive -40% accuracy penalty- Execution - not sure, hotkey???

1. I think better would be "defulatInventorySlot: STR_BACKPAK" or something like that. It could be used in other cases not only for fixed weapons.2. It will be bit pain to implements because all actions store only one item and unit drawing will need changes too to handle cases when both weapons are firing. Overall I think this cost too much compared to its worth.

2. It will be bit pain to implements because all actions store only one item and unit drawing will need changes too to handle cases when both weapons are firing. Overall I think this cost too much compared to its worth.

Yes, it is a pain for proper solution. I guess the graphical side being the biggest pain. The time is not ripe yet for this feature :)

Makes sense for me as well, easy to implement in ruleset and will have much more uses that way.

After some analysis it looks like there is a lot to do if I want to add support for this everywhere... but I have added at least experimental support (for fixed items only!) today.I tested it only on one example though (I put the Nurse's outfit medikit into backpack), so some more tests would help, if you have some time.To repeat my test add the following to AUX_MEDIPACK: defaultInventorySlot: STR_BACK_PACK

True two-handed weapons meaning that you can't carry anything in the other hand?

That would be nice for plenty of things. The accuracy debuff doesn't really show how weird it is to carry two very large (or awkward) but very different weapons successfully. Assault Cannon/Long Bow for example.

I think I will make all alcohol single-type healing item then (just like crack or smokes), and add all extras by the magic of OXCE. Example: Basically, Rum will be wound-healing only, but I will make it to also restore stamina, stun and morale as a secondary effect.

I just got the idea that you can rename the three "actions" heal/painkiller/stim, as they no longer match a specific game effect. For example :- medical kits: 5 stitch 5 inject 5 drink (The included syringe and "emergency drink" can have any effects)- bandage, glue, stapler : only stitch, healing fatal wounds- syringe : only inject, whatever the effects- bottles : only drink, whatever the effects

v2016-01-28 + Added support for day/night indicator + Small fix for 2 handed weapons check during reaction fire and berserking (now applies only to units under direct player's control, i.e. also to mind-controlled aliens, but not to mind-controlled xcom soldiers)

@Ivan: attached is a mod, which turns on the day/night indicator... graphics need some fixing

Btw. for those who are interested:shade = 0 is dayshade = 1-X is dusk/dawn (e.g. 1-9 in OXC)shade = (X+1)-15 is night (e.g. 10-15 in OXC)

X is configurable in OXCE, but not used in PirateZ as far as I can see, default is 9 (same as in OXC)

Sorry, on a bit of a time crunch, but I wanted to contribute since I saw your post. It's not a full turn around for the handob, but I took a crack at it. Something like this, right? Maybe someone can do something better-I tried using the hose, but it seemed a little silly to not use the conical design for our daring pirate crew. I'll edit my post if I can manage to finish the full turn around.

Edit: Finished. I don't really know how they go on a sprite in-game, or what the order for that would be. My apologies in advance if this causes duress.

Yeah I will add them, I'm not sure if I like it (fire damage is such a great way to punish a reckless player), but logic dictates fire extinguishers should be added for simulation's sake. I will make them deal some damage to the target, though, and quite costly TU- and weight- wise. Naturally that'll be another advantage the player has over the AI...One-handed handob is fine. Bigob (16x32) would be appreciated.

Thank you Meridian. I was just thinking through this yesterday. The problem I have knowing what was recovered. Another request arising from this. Is it possible to code in the ability to SELL from that sub-page?

There are still some minor bugs : the storage is no more broken, but some smaller items (say grenades - 1 field) do not get properly placed in front. When trying to place something there, spot refuses to accept it. Similary there is 2*3 spot unreachable in place of previous distortion.Right now, i am doing this from vessel screen, so this can be removed by reopening inventory, but that wont be avalible from pre-mission equipment screen very likely.

There are still some minor bugs : the storage is no more broken, but some smaller items (say grenades - 1 field) do not get properly placed in front. When trying to place something there, spot refuses to accept it. Similary there is 2*3 spot unreachable in place of previous distortion.Right now, i am doing this from vessel screen, so this can be removed by reopening inventory, but that wont be avalible from pre-mission equipment screen very likely.

I will look into it. It may take a few days.

Also, new version is up.

v2016-02-01 + Added support for avatar display in battlescape UI

How it works:1. if you provide custom background for avatar (id = "AvatarBackground"), then this custom background will be rendered instead of rank and on top of that the avatar (=a section of paperdoll for armor "NONE")If this is not specified, nothing happens, game works as before.2. additionally, if you provide tiny rank icons (size 7x7, id = "TinyRanks"), then these will be displayed after the name

Even bb33caf does not contain the latest features Meridian has been working on. More recently I tried compiling 84aeb6ec3a70dbe75c5747a5c26f2176fb1cd6e1 also from the oxce2.5b-plus-prototypes branch but I would run into these "‘INT_MAX’ was not declared in this scope" errors for the following files:

I could get past that if I added #include <limits.h> at the top of those files. However once all the files compiled it would give me a ton of "undefined reference to `OpenXcom::...." for each of those files above.

If you mean b336caf... then that is just normal OpenXcom from SupSuper's repo... nothing to do with OXCE or OXCE+.

84aeb6e is the correct version to compile...

I have heard about "undefined reference..." from 2-3 people already either here or in youtube comments, but all of them solved it somehow... unfortunately they didn't bother to tell me/us how... if you find out, please share it with us afterwards.

PS: at some point, I will install linux on my machine too, to be able to support gcc too, but it can take some time.

And it is a pull request for vanilla too, since ages: https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/pull/904

As for my personal opinion:1. I don't see much use for it, 20 seems enough... but my imagination is not as big as yours :)2. Yankes said he is already working on something like that... and it's a bad idea if 2 (or more) people work on the same thing

Thanks for the answer. I don't think 20 as such is not enough, it's more about designing a system with dynamic spot - so units with better observation skill will spot enemies who are further, and units with better stealth can get closer without being spotted. Much like in UFO: Aftershock. I remember that Dioxine explained it somewhere.

Frankly it was more of a thought experiment than anything else, but I also have a real problem. For the X-Com Files mod I'm working on, I would like to add "undercover" missions where you can only use certain equipment (only concealable weapons like pistols and only selected armours, meaning no armour). I plan to use the "underwater only" mechanics, which won't allow you to use normal weapons.

My question boils down to: is it possible to make such a category of weapons? I think it would require changing the boolean for underwater only/everywhere into an integer, so we could have different environments for different stuff. Plus everything regarding armour behaviour that was already discussed to death in hybrid game threads.

Thanks for the answer. I don't think 20 as such is not enough, it's more about designing a system with dynamic spot - so units with better observation skill will spot enemies who are further, and units with better stealth can get closer without being spotted. Much like in UFO: Aftershock. I remember that Dioxine explained it somewhere.

Frankly it was more of a thought experiment than anything else, but I also have a real problem. For the X-Com Files mod I'm working on, I would like to add "undercover" missions where you can only use certain equipment (only concealable weapons like pistols and only selected armours, meaning no armour). I plan to use the "underwater only" mechanics, which won't allow you to use normal weapons.

My question boils down to: is it possible to make such a category of weapons? I think it would require changing the boolean for underwater only/everywhere into an integer, so we could have different environments for different stuff. Plus everything regarding armour behaviour that was already discussed to death in hybrid game threads.

Categorizing weapons and armor in any imaginable way is easy.

The hard part is what to do with that information.There are many ways how to interpret this categorization, some of which are easy to implement, some are harder and some are probably even impossible.

Example of "easy" is the under-water categorization (and anything similar).You flag a weapon to be usable under water only and check whether you are under water... if yes, give error.I.e. checks are done only when you actually try doing something, not before.

If you however needed functionality that these weapons cannot even be equipped on the craft at all... that would be considerably harder......which brings us to armor.Since the soldiers are wearing armor already before the mission, I cannot just produce an error "Armor is not allowed"... because I don't know what kind of mission will the player decide to go for.

What I could do is make them undress the armor (either all armor; or armor which has the same (new) flag as the (also new) flag on the mission type).The armor would then be retrieved after the mission as "recovered items" so that you don't lose it.

Would that cover your need?

PS: I could also un-equip all disallowed weapons (i.e. put them on the ground before mission), and disable the ability to equip them... probably better than to find out during battle that you can't use any of your weapons :) Problem will arise if the player doesn't bring any usable weapons at all :D

Yes, unequipping disallowed stuff would be good enough for my objectives. However, if applied to a hybrid game, it would create weird effects like people in jump suits breathing water and not dying.

Therefore for armours I think you should also be able point to which armour is used instead. Or just not spawn the soldier at all, assuming they're sitting the mission out because of no SCUBA for them.

Yes, unequipping disallowed stuff would be good enough for my objectives.

I assume you will need more than one flag? For different categorizations?If yes, I will actually try to encode multiple boolean flags into one integer attribute (SO OLD-SCHOOL! :D)... don't worry, it's easier to understand than it looks.

Therefore for armours I think you should also be able point to which armour is used instead. Or just not spawn the soldier at all, assuming they're sitting the mission out because of no SCUBA for them.

Well, if you don't have that armor when you leave the base, I cannot magically summon it. (I could... but I won't)I can make the soldiers sit in the craft, not fighting.... but the player who doesn't know this will just lose the mission immediately (before turn 1), because there will be no soldiers capable of fighting.All in all, I think this is overengineering... and again same question... is this just a theoretical discussion or are you doing a hybrid game?

I can make the soldiers sit in the craft, not fighting.... but the player who doesn't know this will just lose the mission immediately (before turn 1), because there will be no soldiers capable of fighting.

Not a problem, they will learn. There will be Ufopaedia.orgrmation on that (mostly in armour descriptions). And maybe you could add a message why the mission is over instantly, like the "all aliens died in crash" one.

All in all, I think this is overengineering... and again same question... is this just a theoretical discussion or are you doing a hybrid game?

As I said, it's not that exactly need all of this, but it'd be useful. I'm thinking ahead though, since these are modding features that have been cropping up for years on this forum, and so I think they're badly needed.

I actually don't want everything, for that I have debug mode in Visual Studio.

I want this as "last resort" for the player... often I find myself in a situation, when I really cannot tell, if the bullet hit or not... and sometimes it is totally confusing.For example, recently I found out, that shooting from a bow on distance 1 (diagonally) misses a lot... and there's no way to tell.In such situation, I would like to be able to see wtf is going on...

It's your call of course. It's just that this feature reminded me a recent discussion about suspicious trajectory choices from the game engine; and detailed damage stats can also be useful to determine if there's a series of bad luck rolls or game imbalance (*cough* unkillable spartans *cough*).

I assume you will need more than one flag? For different categorizations?If yes, I will actually try to encode multiple boolean flags into one integer attribute (SO OLD-SCHOOL! :D)... don't worry, it's easier to understand than it looks.

Well, you can go to Mars without any armor already.Are we talking on theoretical level or is "Xcom Files" a hybrid game?

Well, if you don't have that armor when you leave the base, I cannot magically summon it. (I could... but I won't)I can make the soldiers sit in the craft, not fighting.... but the player who doesn't know this will just lose the mission immediately (before turn 1), because there will be no soldiers capable of fighting.All in all, I think this is overengineering... and again same question... is this just a theoretical discussion or are you doing a hybrid game?

I'd welcome such a mechanic as well. As for magically summoning armor - absolutely. But not from the base, from thin air instead (and erasing it after a mission). It should be modder's responsibility to make it logical, eg. making a default costless armor for each of enviros he intends on using. If you're using enviros, you need to make specific default armors as well, this sounds perfectly reasonable to me.I'd prefer armor change over forcing non-participation. For example, the default armor for Mars could be a jumpsuit which makes you suffocate in a matter of a few turns :)This can be also used to simulate any kind of enviro. Although separate enviro conditions (eg. "everyone on this map takes 5-10 damage from Smoke towards HP, each turn") would be very cool too.Integer attribute sounds perfect.

Enviro effects, including weather, are my dream. Just one variable (light level) isn't really enough. Sun Tzu said a commander needs to know earth and air. We have Earth (terrain) but very little Air (weather).

Decent-looking fog can't be done without translucency.(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/63152810/n/xcom/foggy.gif)and even then that's a half-assed example since i'm not the best at drawing things like this and especially not quickly for lazy demonstrations

Weather will be available at some point in extended version. This is only matter of placing script in correct places. like for each tile draw custom graphic. This will allow creating rain. Next, when calculating accuracy you will be able to take count of what weather is (for script perspective you will examine custom property of battle map that you can set on whim any value you want). This will allow changing unit graphic too. If you could check if you are on cydonia then switch to torso with helmet (that currently is possible by abusing depth in battlefield, but you can apply it to hands and legs too).

Btw in OXC is possible to have pseudo transparency, but because how engine handle drawing order is impossible to have it bug less. Some fast examples from 2.9

and even then that's a half-assed example since i'm not the best at drawing things like this and especially not quickly for lazy demonstrations

Is that due to static smoke though? Fog might be kind of easy with a few frames of animation to work with. Not good, but easy. Transparency would be fantastic though, with or without animation frames.

@Meridian. Multiple booleans in an integer? Are you just talking about bit-mapping something to the value? (not graphics bitmapping, but I think I know what you're saying. Might need commenting so people know the basic system though. 1+2+4+8+16+32+64+128 for all flags=true in an 8-bit map. Eight booleans offer plenty of options for virtually any mod, but it only takes a byte of data for all 8 flags.)

Meh. You obviously don't remember 1990s. I agree it's not pretty without transparency, but if we were afraid of brick-sized pixels, we wouldn't be here...Another option for fog or similar stuff would be using palette swap, eg. with every color bleached.

Fog can be done by shifting colors to grey instead of black (like TFTD shifts to blue), but you'll lose black colors for UI elements.

About the gameplay effects of weather, IMO it's much more understandable to apply rules throughout the battlefield, like x90% accuracy and daytime vision reduced to 15. A movement penalty can also apply for heavy weather, but I hope nobody overdoes it : It's very unfun when your soldiers take forever to move. I know such penalties shouldn't apply indoors (farm, terror city buildings, inside of UFO), but I don't see a simple way to compute these things tile per tile. I'd rather shrug it off : These penalties still apply indoors because soldiers are still wet and distracted by rain dripping from helmet.

This technique's only plus is saving space by cramming 8 booleans into a single byte; useful for savegame files. It makes little sense to expose this to the modder as it's a nightmare to use; better break it up into 8 booleans for ruleset, and write a script to cram them into a single byte again, it is MUCH more ergonomic that way.

This technique's only plus is saving space by cramming 8 booleans into a single byte; useful for savegame files. It makes little sense to expose this to the modder as it's a nightmare to use; better break it up into 8 booleans for ruleset, and write a script to cram them into a single byte again, it is MUCH more ergonomic that way.

1/ There are actually not only 8, but as many as you can put into an integer (at least 16 I think)

2/ I need to write a lot less code (with lot less code repetition)... instead of handling each flag separately, I can treat all of them at the same time- and yes, cramping them together (after loading) into one byte or int would be possible... but since they have no names (see next point), it wouldn't help the readability of the ruleset anyway

3/ these flags have literally no semantics... they aren't called "canUseUnderWater" or "canBeUsedInFinalMission".... they are basically just "flag1", "flag2", "flag3", etc.

Bottomline:- if you ask for one (or two or three) flags, which have clear names and semantics, I will do them separately- if you need unknown number of flags with unknown semantics, I will cramp them together

@Sambojin: I don't like "scarcity economics". Yes let's use the simplest tools possible, but NOT SIMPLER. Let's use the least space possible, but NOT LESS. Bytes do matter, yes, if we're counting gigabytes. Or double-posting, which is a matter of manners not filesize, as it is often the case with programming, too. And I'm not sure where you're aiming at with your dick joke.

90-99% of Meridian's coding is aimed at X-Piratez, it appears. Especially with his play-through of it. And its a good LP to show how good X-Piratez is.

The best mod, of one of the best games ever.If you package it for Android and iPhone, you'll go down in infamy as the best modder *ever* Dioxine.

But Meridian's patch is pretty all-inclusive, making the basic engine more user friendly, whilst also extending it massively for modders.

That's some donk!

So meh. If you want some weapons or armour to be able to be used in some environments and not others, it's easy. A 16-bit or 8-bit boolean bit-map. Probably with good comments on "How this system works".

Amazing that Meridian would bother to put it in at all, just for one or two mods in development that thought it might be useful. Probably best that it's easy to code....

lol.

Hey, Meridian. I want to rip Syndicate's graphics and sound files and make a mod for openXcom. Could you code in "burble, burble, burble, lots" for me? Only joking......

I have to respectfully disagree that Meridian's work is heavily aimed at X-Piratez. I mean maybe it is, maybe not, I'm not him so I can't know for sure, but it doesn't matter - his changes are clearly written in a way to make them versatile. Which is exactly why they're so important: they are straight extensions of OpenXCom Extended, which is not written for any particular mod.

X-Piratez? The best game utilizing the openXcom engine so far. If Dioxine is sure he/she isn't using any IP assets, it would storm the X-Com-alike market due to excellent gameplay and innovation.

Meridian's extensions, game quality coding, ect, is for us all. Thanks :)

You're both saints. I hope every openXcom player eventually realizes how much further you are taking the engine and game. For any mod of it too. Thanks. I know it's not all your work, but it's the best compilation of mods and coding, for mods and coding, thus-far.

That's the power of open-source and free sharing, man.And I didn't really mean to criticize anyone's way of coding. Everyone codes their own way and that's how it should be. What I was getting at is the manner how it is presented/organized from modder's (and by extension, user's) perspective so features are easier to use (the latest Yankes' changes, while ground-breaking, require some real studies to utilize :P )Also this might look like aimed at X-Piratez, but I would never ask for any features that'd be useless for other mods (like dating engine, for example - I'll write it myself if it comes to that point :) ).

If we talk about custom properties. I'm now working (still in design phase) on system of adding custom properties to armors, units, solders etc.This will be required by script to handle custom behaviors required by modders (like "I_AM_NIJNA: 1").It would be to kinds of properties one in rulesets (readonly but can be overridden by another ruleset) and properties form savegame (that can be modified by scripts, and will be saved and loaded by game).

From code perspective it will be vector of ints (names will be stored separate and used only for saving and loading from files).

I plan have this feature in 3.0 (with unhardcoded reaction code and exposing items to scripts). One interesting side effect will be that weapons could be used in calculating stat bonuses in units (like you will be able to have bigger regeneration if you have correct weapon in hands).

Hmm I cannot imagine a situation where you'd need multiple enviros per map... Either you're on Mars, or you're not. Either you're underwater, or you're not. How many enviros would one need? 5? 10? If no more than this, combining makes little sense. But let's wait what other people say on this.

If we need multiples, I'd vote for option #1, eg. [0, 1, 0, 0, 1]

Also regarding naming - maybe enviro is misleading but customType means literally nothing (a custom type of... what???) :) If enviro is bad then we need some better name. In my own understanding, a mission consists of yourself, enemy, terrain and the rest, which seems natural to be broadly called environment.

EDIT: Also multiple enviros per map can lead to direct conflicts between enviro rules, and unclear preference of armor. Naturally a modder can make it in a way that avoids conflicts, but - this way you can make 500 or more enviro combinations, but with much tighter constraints. If you don't need 500 enviros (combinations), I think it is better to stick to '1 enviro per map' rule, as there will be no conflicts and modding would be much easier.

Hmm I cannot imagine a situation where you'd need multiple enviros per map... Either you're on Mars, or you're not. Either you're underwater, or you're not. How many enviros would one need? 5? 10? If no more than this, combining makes little sense. But let's wait what other people say on this.

Yes, that's why I don't want to call it enviroType, but customType.It is not only about environment.Originally Solarius came to me with this request:

For the X-Com Files mod I'm working on, I would like to add "undercover" missions where you can only use certain equipment (only concealable weapons like pistols and only selected armours, meaning no armour).

You see that this has nothing to do with environments... he wants to disable certain weapons and armors for certain mission types. It is a generalization of environmental conditions/restrictions, to "any" (or "custom" if you will) conditions.

Also regarding naming - maybe enviro is misleading but customType means literally nothing (a custom type of... what???) :) If enviro is bad then we need some better name. In my own understanding, a mission consists of yourself, enemy, terrain and the rest, which seems natural to be broadly called environment.

"A custom type of mission".

I can't think of any better name... these conditions can represent virtually anything. I don't know... for example a mission where only weapons which don't make any noise are allowed (e.g. knives, swords and bows). That's not type of environment, it's just a custom type of mission.

EDIT: Also multiple enviros per map can lead to direct conflicts between enviro rules, and unclear preference of armor. Naturally a modder can make it in a way that avoids conflicts, but - this way you can make 500 or more enviro combinations, but with much tighter constraints. If you don't need 500 enviros (combinations), I think it is better to stick to '1 enviro per map' rule, as there will be no conflicts and modding would be much easier.

Yes. That's why I didn't want to implement it.I would say that the modder should explain to the user, which armor/items are allowed for that kind of mission and which are not... or as Solarius stated earlier, just let the player find out.... the hard way.

Not a problem, they will learn. There will be Ufopaedia.orgrmation on that (mostly in armour descriptions). And maybe you could add a message why the mission is over instantly, like the "all aliens died in crash" one.

So for example I could produce a message "There are no soldiers capable of fighting in this mission... Aborting now."And because I am a nice person, the crash site would not disappear, so that the player can reequip and return.

"For the X-Com Files mod I'm working on, I would like to add "undercover" missions where you can only use certain equipment (only concealable weapons like pistols and only selected armours, meaning no armour)."

For me it's environment, in this case, created by social constraints :) But I agree it's arguable definition. Otoh "customType" on a weapon is unclear, it could be something like "battleType" which has nothing to do with mission rules. IMO it's misleading, but there's little point in fighting over words :) Like I said, better to wait for what Solarius and others have to say in the matter...

Actually, as the person who came to you first, I think "enviro" is the perfect term. You said the above-mentioned undercover missions have "nothing to do with environments", but it's not right, because this is exactly a type of environment. Environment doesn't only refer to weather, but to any set of external conditions, that's why we peak of "work environment", "software environment" etc. So I think enviroType not only isn't misleading, but is actually the most precise term I can think of.

EDIT: ninja'd by Dioxine)

As for how to organize this information, I'm torn on this. I'm more inclined to side with Dioxine here, but then I worry if I'm not preventing some modder from doing something they want. It's impossible to think of everything.

Just saying right now that if it will be "undercover mission" (deployment), "during night" (shade) in "polar environment" (terrain), you will NOT be able to use only "undercover weapons only" (deployment), "night-capable weapons only" (shade) and "weapons working in polar environment only" (terrain). You will only be able to choose one of these conditions.

Also, when you start categorizing weapons... let's make an easy example (category 1: ranged, category 2: melee, category 3: grenades), you will NOT be able to create a mission where you can use category 1+2 weapons. You will only be able to choose 1 category. If you would like to use weapons of category 1 and 2... you will need to create another category 4 and do all the work again. If I was modding, that alone would probably totally discourage me from using the feature.

It will work perfectly fine for your custom "undercover mission", but as soon as you will try to create another custom mission, you will start having problems. With each new type, more and more problems.

Why would we even need these "categories"? Who would add "one-handed only" as an enviro type? Maybe for some arena fights or other sports but not for real combat missions. I'd rather have that on an item-per-item basis, eg. "forbiddenEnviroTypes: [3, 17, 26]", therefore removing any possibility of conflict or any problems of the kind you speak of.

Then I no longer have a clear idea what features you might mean to add - I was only talking on what could be useful for me (and hopefully others too). Sorry this is not an assault but I simply got lost, I'm too dumb :)

In essence it's a simple thing really, allow the modder to define environments and allow items & armours to be flagged for not working in this environment. (Plus additional code for what to do with non-matching armours.)

In order to do that, you need to be able to create an enviroType:

enviroType: - underwater - outerspace - mars - stealth - dreamland

and also add the necessary code to the item, something like that:

forbiddenEnviroType: - underwater - outerspace - stealth

This means that this particular weapon can be used on Mars and in Dreamlands, but not underwater or in open space, and is not a stealthy weapon.

Of course you also need to define which terrain is what, but that's obvious.

Of course you also need to define which terrain is what, but that's obvious.

Lol, everything before this sentence was obvious, but the very sentence which you say is obvious is not obvious to me at all...

So how exactly do you want to define the enviroType?1/ Dioxine wanted it on alien deployment?2/ You want it on terrain?3/ I would like it on combination of several things (including terrain, shade, alien mission, alien race, alien craft, maybe alien deployment and maybe others)

I don't really know where it should belong... Terrain is more natural, since most of these effects are related to geographical region or space etc. And instances of "stealth environment" can also be bound to terrain, like Corporate Office.And it would be annoying to make separate deployments for a Battleship on Earth and on Mars. It should be the same deployment. So enviros don't belong there.

After seeing it in action, I change my mind. The mini-portraits look awesome! How are they generated? Basing on STR_NONE_UC armor? Also I think it'd be better to fit the rank into the name bar than on the portrait... now someone needs to draw these ranks and I have very little time to mod anything lately...

EDIT: not sure if STR_NONE_UC is always the best option for the avatar... it does look very good graphically, but what if a gal is wearing less? :) Would it be possible to overrule the default choice on a per-armor basis?

After seeing it in action, I change my mind. The mini-portraits look awesome! How are they generated? Basing on STR_NONE_UC armor? Also I think it'd be better to fit the rank into the name bar than on the portrait... now someone needs to draw these ranks and I have very little time to mod anything lately...

EDIT: not sure if STR_NONE_UC is always the best option for the avatar... it does look very good graphically, but what if a gal is wearing less? :) Would it be possible to overrule the default choice on a per-armor basis?

They are generated from STR_NONE_UC, starting at position [66,42] with size of [26,23].Sometimes if the head is too big (for example that girl with white hair), a pixel or two are cut off from the top. But better that than showing empty space for girls with microcephaly.

I took STR_NONE_UC, because Solarius said that in vanilla, most avatars would have helmets... which is not so cool.But I am open to suggestions... originally I took it from the armor the girls were wearing, and it's not a big change at all.

EDIT: maybe a flag on armor? Like "hasHelmet: true" (default would be false) or something like that for armors with helmet? And then use the armor itself if it doesn't have helmet, and STR_NONE_UC otherwise?

Yeah fine-tuning requires some thought. Taking the avatar from the armor worn might be a good default choice... but this would need override as well, since many armors obscure the face thus completely defeating the idea of avatar picture :) For now, using STR_NONE_UC works just fine. Maybe just simple a global ruleset option that allows for:1) choosing the armor all the avatars are based on;2) choosing the XY offset (a must if this function is supposed to work not only for Piratez)Both on per-soldier race basis once we finally upgrade to OXCE 2.9 :)

I was intending to take a stab at this but the sprite size is wrong; it should be 11x18, not 10x18. My old files are misaligned on purpose (so they don't collide with anything). Also to have this fully functioning, HWP-like units should also have custom sprites (now they're all tanks, regardless if they're tanks, cyberdiscs, reapers or sectoids).Also this brings me to... the vanilla equipment presentation is lacking in OXC; it was intended for 80 items limit, hence it is useless as info (the bar is always full). How about making it more useful? Maybe add optional function that counts equipment on weight basis (would not count HWPs), with a moddable number of weight units that represent each "equipment" sprite? Now musings time: possibly a weight limit on craft! (this one would count each soldier's weight = weight of their battle corpse, plus HWPs, plus all equipment, must be lower or equal the limit - or just count the weight of items for simplicity's sake). In an advanced model, it could limit the weight of loot, leading to DECISIONS (more soldiers with heavy gear? or more space for loot? What to grab, what to discard?) :)

Also to have this fully functioning, HWP-like units should also have custom sprites (now they're all tanks, regardless if they're tanks, cyberdiscs, reapers or sectoids).Also this brings me to... the vanilla equipment presentation is lacking in OXC; it was intended for 80 items limit, hence it is useless as info (the bar is always full). How about making it more useful? Maybe add optional function that counts equipment on weight basis (would not count HWPs), with a moddable number of weight units that represent each "equipment" sprite? Now musings time: possibly a weight limit on craft! (this one would count each soldier's weight = weight of their battle corpse, plus HWPs, plus all equipment, must be lower or equal the limit - or just count the weight of items for simplicity's sake). In an advanced model, it could limit the weight of loot, leading to DECISIONS (more soldiers with heavy gear? or more space for loot? What to grab, what to discard?) :)

As for Equipment and HWPs... they were not mentioned in the request, so I didn't change them... I'll think about them and then come back with questions and proposals.

10x18 is the correct size. I checked it again, the sprites are actually 10 pixels wide. And even if they weren't, in the code each new sprite is put 10 pixels more to the right as the last one.

Yes, but that's because they overlap :) The sprite proper is (normally) 9-pixel wide, plus 1 pixel black outline each side, equals 11. But to draw sprites in any kind of civilized fashion, there should be 11 or even better, 12 pixels on the spritesheet (so either 11x18 or 12x19), so each is clearly separated from the others and the artist has some space to maneuver :)

Now musings time: possibly a weight limit on craft! (this one would count each soldier's weight = weight of their battle corpse, plus HWPs, plus all equipment, must be lower or equal the limit - or just count the weight of items for simplicity's sake). In an advanced model, it could limit the weight of loot, leading to DECISIONS (more soldiers with heavy gear? or more space for loot? What to grab, what to discard?) :)

There was a discussion about this here (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,2306.msg22959.html#msg22959), with quite a few ideas on what to count.

Interesting read. One detail: if crafts have their own storage space, also the rule of crafts sharing storage with base's stores needs to be removed - these storages are separate. And while I thought that Weight is the most logical choice as limiter, perhaps Size is ultimately the best choice since base storage space is counted in Size so it would be consistent. On limit per item count, while it certainly works as tactical limiter, I cannot agree - a rocket launcher is not the same as a flare, however you look at this.

Yes, but that's because they overlap :) The sprite proper is (normally) 9-pixel wide, plus 1 pixel black outline each side, equals 11. But to draw sprites in any kind of civilized fashion, there should be 11 or even better, 12 pixels on the spritesheet (so either 11x18 or 12x19), so each is clearly separated from the others and the artist has some space to maneuver :)

Well, if that is the only issue, I think (98% sure) that you can define them even as 100x100 already if you wish. (If not let me know)

Rendered will however be only first 18 pixels from the top.Horizontally all pixels will be rendered, but they will overlap; and if you don't start at 0, they will also be shifted (like now in piratez).

In either case, I will not be changing the effective available space for each sprite, that will remain 10x18.

In either case, I will not be changing the effective available space for each sprite, that will remain 10x18.

I was never suggesting such a thing :) I'd even go so far as to suggest automatic increase of overlapping (less horizontal space per sprite) if the number of soldiers is bigger than it can fit on the screen (like in Master of Orion 1 & 2, for example) :) But that's another story. For spritesheet spacing, I'd like 12x19 (so you have some space to maneuver without resorting to using smaller sprites). Oh right, but this can be defined simply by telling the OXC how to cut the sheet (and keeping my sprites in the upper left corner of that defined space), right? No need for hardcoding anything? If that's the case I simply didn't know, and forgive me my ignorance.

Enjoying what you have done so far but on my last mission the game kept crashing to the desktop somehow, have attached a save and openxcom log. I was wondering also if you are considering a pirate themed version of commendations?

ps In the end I had to debug to get by, so maybe it was only that mission?

No I didn't update the exe as since starting the play through on 7th Feb I've been using the exe of that date, maybe one of the mods is causing some sort of conflict but it hasn't happened again so I'll not worry too much. As for the number of mods, is 21 in total too many? This is including piratez itself and several that come with piratez-see below:

@Simon:I know what mods you're using (it's listed in your savegame file), I'm just saying I cannot give any guarantees because I don't know most of them. Not saying it's the mods that cause the crash, either. Might be some genuine map bug or whatever. Impossible to tell. Many mods will clash with Piratez, that's for sure.Things I know:- Commendations cannot work unless you've compiled a modification of Meridian's exe that includes them.- kneel-button is already integrated, no need to use the mod- not sure why you're using a mortar tank, the game already has one...- any mod that modifies some of game's original content might cause unforeseen effects with Piratez. Mods that add completely new things (like the Viper) should be safe to use. Unless they're buggy themselves, that is - many weren't updated for ages :)

@Meridian: trying to make these armor preview icons, but I'm getting transparency problems, despite using the same palette as always (GUI_Soldier.gif displays transparency properly, but the same palette applied to custom armor preview icons produces light green where the transparency should be). What's going on?

EDIT: NVMD, I've found the proper palette and everything seems to be fine.

Meridian, have you considered including my statistical bullet conservation (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4062.0.html)? I find it helps a lot to alleviate the "don't shoot or empty the clip" syndrome for special weapons with small, valuable clips.

Also, do you think it would be possible to add keyboard shortcut support for ufopaedia articles? Specifically pressing tab to go to the next article and shift-tab to go to the previous article, much like we can cycle through soldiers. It would be very handy for scanning multiple articles.

Meridian, have you considered including my statistical bullet conservation (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4062.0.html)? I find it helps a lot to alleviate the "don't shoot or empty the clip" syndrome for special weapons with small, valuable clips.

I have seen it, but I consider it a small cheat, or at least cheese. If some ammo is rare and/or expensive, it is either a modder's mistake and should be corrected or modder's intention and should be accepted.

Also, do you think it would be possible to add keyboard shortcut support for ufopaedia articles? Specifically pressing tab to go to the next article and shift-tab to go to the previous article, much like we can cycle through soldiers. It would be very handy for scanning multiple articles.

Yes, it is literally just two lines of code... but aren't the buttons enough? There's nothing else to click on anyways...

I think random solution work only for weapons that have ammunition in abundance. If we have ammo that is limited then each time player lose roll then he will be enraged (even if last 10 mission he grain more than he lost now). Image that you lost unique 10 bullet clip after only one shoot even it "should" preserve.

I think better solution would be counting and storing sub clip bullets.

I too think that this clip "round down" is significant in Piratez.The random solution is statistically fair in the long run, and scavenging can explain the lucky rolls. The "leftover ammo" solution is even better but requires modifying save files (to store the extra data)Either solution would successfully remove the weird incentive to use 'all-or-nothing' of a weapon.

I have seen it, but I consider it a small cheat, or at least cheese. If some ammo is rare and/or expensive, it is either a modder's mistake and should be corrected or modder's intention and should be accepted.

But.. it is statistically equivalent to conserving bullets. It is certainly not a cheat, nor a way to bypass a modder's intent. With this, you can carefully hoard your shots and hope to be able to keep a weapon (but also risk losing the clip after a single shot used), instead of the current situation which encourages not shooting (overhoarding, wasting the modder's work since you are not using it) or emptying a whole clip (going against "reasonable behaviour" for a weapon with valuable ammo).

And there is nothing to get frustrated about. Either you lose a clip because you used up some shots, or you don't. Which is an improvement over always losing the clip.

Quote

Yes, it is literally just two lines of code... but aren't the buttons enough? There's nothing else to click on anyways...

I guess it is different depending on people. I am not much of a mouse user. I would love shortcuts. If you don't think it should be implemented (even if just for consistency's and my sake), can you point me to the change that would need to be made?

The random solution is statistically fair in the long run, and scavenging can explain the lucky rolls. The "leftover ammo" solution is even better but requires modifying save files (to store the extra data)

Good thing that OXC save games is that it ignore all unknown nodes this allow without any big effort add new data without even breaking backward compatibility.I think system should work like that:1) At end battlescape last half empty clip is fill up.2) You remember numbers of bullet you borrow in base (you add this to value from previous mission).3) If numbers of borrowed is greater than clip size, then remove one clip and reduce borrow count.4) When you use last clip from base in battlescape it would have bullets count reduced by borrow value (similar with transfer between bases).

Only glitch it could have is downgrading to basic version of OXC, it will fill up all partial empty clips in bases :)

"abundance" is require to made your solution work (lot of rolls will even out). But problem is when you lack items and your "be" or "not to be" depends on one roll it could be frustrating.

Fair enough, but it still seems better than always "not to be". You are right in needing a lot of rolls to properly work, but I still consider it an improvement over a constant bias.

Quote

Good thing that OXC save games is that it ignore all unknown nodes this allow without any big effort add new data without even breaking backward compatibility.I think system should work like that:1) At end battlescape last half empty clip is fill up.2) You remember numbers of bullet you borrow in base (you add this to value from previous mission).3) If numbers of borrowed is greater than clip size, then remove one clip and reduce borrow count.4) When you use last clip from base in battlescape it would have bullets count reduced by borrow value (similar with transfer between bases).

Only glitch it could have is downgrading to basic version of OXC, it will fill up all partial empty clips in bases :)

Yes, proper bullet conservation is better than statistical bullet conservation, no doubt. But its downside is that I can't code that ;) If you or Meridian could, I'd be more than happy to use it!

This "bullet conservation" sounds all nice but I don't want to be forced to double all the ammo prices... they were balanced with the old system in mind. In reality, it would discourage instead of encourage to use expensive weapons since the clips would be even more expensive than they are now (get 3 clips 40k each, fire a couple of shots, get f*cked by the RNG three times).

As for "partial clip" solution, while it is most reasonable wouldn't it baloon the savefile size? The saving times are already considerably long...

This "bullet conservation" sounds all nice but I don't want to be forced to double all the ammo prices... they were balanced with the old system in mind. In reality, it would discourage instead of encourage to use expensive weapons since the clips would be even more expensive than they are now (get 3 clips 40k each, fire a couple of shots, get f*cked by the RNG three times).

As for "partial clip" solution, while it is most reasonable wouldn't it baloon the savefile size? The saving times are already considerably long...

Probably not, Depending how it was implemented it would add around 20x8 (different clip x bases) new lines to save game. This is lot less than around 2K lines that save can have.

More like, 15k lines or more, at least in Piratez with the newest build. But yeah doesn't seem like a big difference. Might be a bit tricky to implement as things like selling and transfers have to be taken into consideration.

How about moving this to 2.9 altogether? I will update the mod as soon as possible and we'll be able to work on 2.9 from then on, instead of keeping to 2.5b.Right now I'm working on armor preview icons, I should add at least that and fire extinguishers to the new release as well, and maybe a few little things (sounds maybe poor compared to my usual output but I have much less time for modding lately. MONEY problems). Still no bigob for fire extinguisher but maybe I'll find something.

I still haven't been able to compile a version, which would not crash when playing intro.

I think there is something wrong with YAML library, but I cannot even debug it, because in debug mode it crashes without even getting to that point (either before or just when oxc starts).I'll have to invest more time into it; in the meantime the safest way is to use the standalone OXCE+ exe built by Yankes.

EDIT: if you want to release 2.9+ now, let's ask Yankes to build a recent version for us (https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/commits/oxce2.9-plus-proto). The one I can build on my own is not stable enough for a release.

I still haven't been able to compile a version, which would not crash when playing intro.

I think there is something wrong with YAML library, but I cannot even debug it, because in debug mode it crashes without even getting to that point (either before or just when oxc starts).I'll have to invest more time into it; in the meantime the safest way is to use the standalone OXCE+ exe built by Yankes.

EDIT: if you want to release 2.9+ now, let's ask Yankes to build a recent version for us (https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/commits/oxce2.9-plus-proto). The one I can build on my own is not stable enough for a release.

I'm now preparing to compile your branch, when it ready I will post link to exe.

Btw How you use yaml lib? as external library or part of project? At least in my build env I drop in yaml source files as part of project. One possible crash cause could be mismatch between debug version of lib and openxcom.

Btw How you use yaml lib? as external library or part of project? At least in my build env I drop in yaml source files as part of project. One possible crash cause could be mismatch between debug version of lib and openxcom.

As external library.

I am investigating more on the issue now and yaml-cpp is probably not the problem.It's probably the SDL mixer.

The crash happens when "Mix_OpenAudio" is called for the second time, i.e.: - after intro - after changing audio/mods settings (and the game needs restart)

Any idea what could be causing that?

I use: - SDL: 1.2.15 - SDL_gfx: 2.0.25 - SDL_image: 1.2.12 - SDL_mixer: 1.2.12 (+ dynamically loaded DLLs for flac, mikmod, ogg and so on... the same ones which are in the official package for vs2010 on the ufopedia)

Just dropping this here. I got a crash to desktop from clicking on STR_GRAND_TOTAL in the Vaults through the base logs. Not quite sure where the extra string for that was supposed to dwell, but it didn't bother me much. I've never clicked on it though until now. XD

I've come across another minor glitch. It may be in OXCE, but because I'm using Meridian's 2.5b build I thought I'd start the conversation here.

In the basescape, when I open the Prison interface it doesn't display the capacity correctly. I've built two prisons now in my primary base (Thanks for the nerf, Dioxine) but the prison screen still shows only 15 capacity. 15/15 space used. In the base logs I'm seeing the correct value of 15/30 space used in the prisons.

I was opening the interface by right clicking on either facility. Vaults, when opened in this way, work correctly and display the base's total capacity.

I've come across another minor glitch. It may be in OXCE, but because I'm using Meridian's 2.5b build I thought I'd start the conversation here.

In the basescape, when I open the Prison interface it doesn't display the capacity correctly. I've built two prisons now in my primary base (Thanks for the nerf, Dioxine) but the prison screen still shows only 15 capacity. 15/15 space used. In the base logs I'm seeing the correct value of 15/30 space used in the prisons.

I was opening the interface by right clicking on either facility. Vaults, when opened in this way, work correctly and display the base's total capacity.

(Sorry if this has already been reported)

In the prison interface you see Space available/free = 15, space used = 15... which totals to 30. Capacity is not shown anywhere.

I just thought of something. Something that plenty of others have probably thought of before, so maybe I'm just re-asking for it. I don't know if it's codeable, or just requires an extensive but easy graphics mod.

A facing indicator for enemy troops.

It's already graphically shown on the enemy sprite, but sometimes it's damn hard to tell just which way enemy troops are facing when there's plenty of smoke and/or fire about. With rear armour being such a huge thing in Xpiratez, it'd be very useful. Tantamount to cheating, just because it makes it easier to plan shots, stuns, etc.

But in theory, no different to what we have now. It'll just make it obvious.

Can a small blue pixel be coded in on the enemy's game sprites to show which way they're facing (blue should stand out amongst fire/smoke/landscape).

Or will I have to do a large optional graphics mod, one pixel per enemy, per facing?

I'm almost at the end of the second year in a run through of piratez 0.97D using your exe of 02/21/2016 and still a long way to go. I was wondering on two ponts:

1.

Is it a glitch or intentional that you can only target star gods on a diagonal, ie the square changes from green to red? By the way they seem to be immune to handles, electro whips and stun batons, took 2 stun bombs from the small launcher to stun a star god novice.

2. With you being able to have up to 4 weapons on a craft why does it only show the first two in the geoscape, see attached picture? Or is this part of the UI hardcoded?

because Dioxine don't add translation strings for weapon 3 and 4. (and if he add this, then is bug in that functionality)

And I didn't add I because there is a bug in it :)

About the immunity of the invisible units to melee - no idea. They weren't like this a couple of engine versions ago. Might be that someone 'corrected' the melee targeting to aim for the central pixel, which doesn't exist. No idea, someone who knows the code could answer that.

I thought the star gods were intentionally resistant to stun (hence why basic stun weapons don't work on them), to make them difficult to capture. I ended up stunning mines with a tesla coil instead of the normal stun weapons. I don't think they are immune to melee. You can hit them, but they don't take much damage from the normal melee types.

EDIT: I have a possible bug to report. With the "everybody fights, no-one quits" enabled, when my base was attacked, the game seemed to hung up during the equipping phase (couldn't get it to display anything else than my dog), then, after a couple of minutes, mission started, giving me no possibility to equip soldiers (the initial health damage mechanic, however, worked!). Regrettably, the attack came out of the blue and there is no save.

STR_WEAPON_ONE: "WEAPON-1>{ALT}{0}" STR_WEAPON_TWO: "WEAPON-2>{ALT}{0}" STR_3: "WEAPON-3>{ALT}{0}" STR_4: "WEAPON-4>{ALT}{0}"One feature this give is that each craft can have special names or slots like "Booster" or "Radar".

Had a weird crash just now but I'm able to work around it at the moment. As the clock goes past midnight the game crashes, I checked several different dates. However if I halt the research on the "GOVT/RETICULAN FILES" before midnight the game goes on fine. I've researched this topic before from manufacturing the personel data and had no problems so I'm unsure why this is happening on this occasion. I also deleted my options.cfg file to see if that helped but no luck and I upgraded to the .exe of 2016-02-26 as it originally started crashing on the one of 2016-02-21 but still no luck. Any ideas? The reserve.sav is with the research halted, test.sav is not.

ps I only noticed that Dioxine had done v0.98 which corrects this, so I'll try that version via your exe, just one final point can I use my current game or do I have to start a new campaign?

I just thought of something. Something that plenty of others have probably thought of before, so maybe I'm just re-asking for it. I don't know if it's codeable, or just requires an extensive but easy graphics mod.

A facing indicator for enemy troops.

It's already graphically shown on the enemy sprite, but sometimes it's damn hard to tell just which way enemy troops are facing when there's plenty of smoke and/or fire about. With rear armour being such a huge thing in Xpiratez, it'd be very useful. Tantamount to cheating, just because it makes it easier to plan shots, stuns, etc.

But in theory, no different to what we have now. It'll just make it obvious.

Can a small blue pixel be coded in on the enemy's game sprites to show which way they're facing (blue should stand out amongst fire/smoke/landscape).

Or will I have to do a large optional graphics mod, one pixel per enemy, per facing?

Once more, great, no.. awesome work on the UI. Your change make this game so much more polished it feels almost like OXC to the original!

One more request: Is there a way you could fix the empty "Research completed" messages? I think they pop when you complete a project you've already done before (like interrogating something for the second time), but I am not entirely sure. You had one in the last episode I've watched here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3HbtkZSnQM&index=38&list=PLe0K-GUDQkNJM3d7NgS4gU7u-Pm-4JWk3&t=38m47s).

It would be really neat to have that say whoever it was that got interrogated.

So I played with your new 2.5b+ (2/26/16) update for half an hour. Then swapped over to the new one (2.9) that came packaged with .98. Sorry. I had to go back. The Manufacturing required items preview is just too good!

Please let me know when you update the 2.9+ branch to include this. :)

About infirmary time, in some future I will add option for calculating it based on other factors than health.This will allow some break time because of stress or reduce recovery time for unit with lot of health.Another benefice of this would be that in even longer run it will be able support surgery rooms that reduce time to recover.

"Hey, where's Spiral Vixen? I need her on board, now.""Cap'n, she said she needed some break time because of stress.""Meaning?""She's passed out from the rum and won't wake up in three days at least.""Dayum!"

About infirmary time, in some future I will add option for calculating it based on other factors than health.This will allow some break time because of stress or reduce recovery time for unit with lot of health.Another benefice of this would be that in even longer run it will be able support surgery rooms that reduce time to recover.

This is a cool idea. Anything that increases the RPG element enhances the game in my opinion.

If you do this you should make it so you can't just sack a soldier that is on leave or injured. I already think that should be an optional enforcement in the game limiting the number of soldier sacking you can do. (Maybe you can sack 1 out of every 10 you hire?) Don't these soldiers have contracts? Workers comp? Severance pay? No, you can just fire them when they take a bullet to the chest for your cause!

Same for firing soldiers with low stats. This is the alien apocalypse, not the NFL draft. ;) Realistically you wouldn't have an endless supply of expert soldiers you could cycle through hiring/firing on a whim.

You have a great solution for calculating the number of items that could be made from the available resources.

Could we now use that value to automatically assign that many items for manufacture when starting the manufacturing job? I'm imagining "middle-clicking" on the up arrow, would change the number to be made to that exact number. We already increment by 1 with a left click, Increase by x-value with the scroll wheel (I like 10), and set to infinite with right click.

Then all we would have to do, is see that some hostages for slaves are available etc, click into the manufacturing job, middle click and done. :)

Melee damage is complicated. Personally, I use a spreadsheet to calculate melee weapon damage for my gals. People used to do that for manufacturing for profit, but now we don't need that anymore because we have the ingame info. I would like to have something similar for melee damage.

Problem is, the damage is dependent on the armor of the target. So you cannot calculate a correct damage value when you equip an item. Since meridian implemented a combat log, I would suggest to use that to give some feedback on melee weapon damage. Not the actual numbers, just some rough indicators. Like "no damage", "minor scratch", "good hit" and "devastating blow".Logic behind that, if you are fighting someone in melee, you CAN tell if you injured him or if your blow did nothing. When you hit someone with a hammer from behind and the blow bounced right off their armor, you will know. If you chainsaw someone and their armor compleately stops it, you will know. When you hit someone in the face with fistycuffs and land a good hit, you know that you did. This should help beginners figuring out how effective their melee strategies are.

Adding a text log, like in Fallout or Baldur's Gate, would be more informative - if you think about deaf people, they won't know if they hit in the first place. Text log would make everything clear, to both deaf and non-deaf.

Hm how about adding a function for a custom hitSound played when no damage was dealt? That should be an easy solution.

Not so easy, right now biggest problem is order of sound play and damage calculation. When you know that no damage was done it already after sound and animation ended. At some point I want change this but right now I have other things to do.

Which version of X-PirateZ do you have?And which version of my mod do you have?

I installed X-Piratez 0.97D (2.5+ v01-29-2016), the latest version on the OpenXcom website. I then installed the 0.98 (2.9+ v2016-02-28) mod from the beginning of this thread on top of it. It's entirely possible that I installed it wrong, or overlooked some kind of compatibility issue between the versions.

I installed the 0.98 mod by simply copy/pasting the files into the 0.97D folder and replacing as necessary, then using the new executable to launch the game. I did end up having to install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 to get it to work, but after that it seemed to work fine.

At the moment I can save during battles without any issues, but if I save during the Geoscape sequence then the save file will "forget" all of my Hands, leaving my Barracks and vessels empty.

EDIT - When I revert the game back to 2.5b+, my save files work just fine. My Hands reappear in the barracks, even in files where they had seemingly disappeared.

EDIT x2 - I just realized that with the 2.9+ mod applied, it also removes the ability to hire new Hands through the Black Market.

I installed X-Piratez 0.97D (2.5+ v01-29-2016), the latest version on the OpenXcom website. I then installed the 0.98 (2.9+ v2016-02-28) mod from the beginning of this thread on top of it. It's entirely possible that I installed it wrong, or overlooked some kind of compatibility issue between the versions.

Yes, it is a compatibility issue.

PirateZ 0.97 is comaptible only with 2.5+.PirateZ 0.98 is compatible only with 2.9+.

Would it be possible to make a command next to a research topic which blocks another research? This would allow to introduce choices and multiple paths. One crucial thing, the command should remove the blocked topic from the list if the blocking one is selected for research; otherwise it would be possible to bring both of them to the research menu and have both.

Would it be possible to make a command next to a research topic which blocks another research? This would allow to introduce choices and multiple paths. One crucial thing, the command should remove the blocked topic from the list if the blocking one is selected for research; otherwise it would be possible to bring both of them to the research menu and have both.

Yeah. I'm not planning to add this soon, but there's an idea you could take the evil path: striking a deal with Mercs and throwing away all this 'defend the mutants' thing, become for-profit-only evil pirate. I was planning to do it like this:1. optional research that enables a new mission spawn2. mission (do a Pogrom... yourself, and get paid)3. you get research item4. once researched, this changes missions that spawn - in short, no more Mutant Pogroms in the defensive sense, now you go to kill and rob the mutants.5. this should make it impossible to form Mutant Self Defense Force or help mutants in other constructive ways;6. However, even if these actions will be based on missions too, and these missions would be blocked by research, the player can hoard a research item and research them both later, at the same time, thus weaseling out of such a choice.

This is only a general outline; it's possible there will be more of such game-altering choices.

Assign tr("STR_UNITS_PRODUCED") to a variable before this line; and then just use the variable instead... or just replace that whole thing with a static text

cross-platform/compiler compatibility is gonna kill IT one day I tell ya...

That's odd, my compiler never seemed to be more picky except with oxce+.. Anyhow.

I tried to define a variable, and failed pathetically.. it wouldn't store the value in anything but a "const OpenXcom::LocalizedText", which the addRow function wouldn't accept any ways... I expect addRow wants a normal string, but I couldn't use a std::string to store the output.

That's odd, my compiler never seemed to be more picky except with oxce+.. Anyhow.

I tried to define a variable, and failed pathetically.. it wouldn't store the value in anything but a "const OpenXcom::LocalizedText", which the addRow function wouldn't accept any ways... I expect addRow wants a normal string, but I couldn't use a std::string to store the output.

Sorry, but I still have the error I mentioned before. Installing the MS distributable doesn't help.

What operating system do you have?Are you using all files from the package? (a couple versions ago one DLL has changed too, not only EXE)Did you install 32-bit version of C++ redistributable as Ivan suggested?

Due to upgrade to 2.9 OXCE, the 'avatar instead of rank' function doesn't work so well anymore, as different races should have different avatars. Perhaps it'd be possible to add functionality to set the armor used as source, and xy offset for every soldier race separately?

Due to upgrade to 2.9 OXCE, the 'avatar instead of rank' function doesn't work so well anymore, as different races should have different avatars. Perhaps it'd be possible to add functionality to set the armor used as source, and xy offset for every soldier race separately?

EDIT: Done. New version is up.

v2016-03-17 + Ability to define avatar position (per soldier type) + Ability to define armor for avatar in the ruleset

Thank you :) I will try to add a playable race before your next recording. Doggies are out of question, without that 2-dog limit, massive homing-HE-pack-bombing will ensue :) But I'll try to cook something up. Maybe upgradeable Advisors (Mindprobe of Haste, some armor).

Meridians, just downloaded and tried the 2016-03-17 version of 2.9I'm still getting the 'Not a Valid Win32 Application' Error.You fixed this in the 2016-03-14 version - Why is it back?PS - Can't find a copy of 2016-03-14 in the links, is it possable to get one?

It's back because I compiled it on a different computer (on notebook while waiting for a delayed flight :D)

The first post contains a link to an archive, you can get 2016-03-14 there.

We could have weapon specific behaviour for kneeling. For example, snipers could get a bigger boost to accuracy for kneeling than other weapons. Autofire range could be extended when kneeling. Or snap range or aimed range. Think of the possibilities!

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this idea, but if you like it I'm sure you will tell the right person.

We could have weapon specific behaviour for kneeling. For example, snipers could get a bigger boost to accuracy for kneeling than other weapons. Autofire range could be extended when kneeling. Or snap range or aimed range. Think of the possibilities!

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this idea, but if you like it I'm sure you will tell the right person.

I apologise for the tone,i think that i may have multiple versions installed and they may be conflicing with each other,regardless i will try to find and remove all of them and then install the proper one.

Is there a program to download the dll files in a proper manner or is there a method that im not aware of?

there is only 86 and 64 bit so naturaly my 32 bit machine should only be compatible with 86 as i cant find a 36 option.

They are the same,i used the link from the first page and i believe that you gave me that one to use,i have deleted all previous redist from my pc including this one but even after the reinstall i get ucrtbase.terminate instead of abort,it's still about api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll

I cant give much detail as it's written in greek and a translation might make it sound more complicated that it needs to be.

But maybe it has to do with where i have the dll.I did threw that one in system32 haphazardly after all,i probably had to do something else considering that you mentioned how ugly things can get.

I am certain that 2016-03-25-oxce29plus.zip needs to have its contents moved in the same file as piratez,i cant mistake that.

Incase anyone wants to know im trying to download the latest version 98.Which is where all the problems have started as the previous versions seem to work fine,the api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0dll is the problem as even with the vc redist 86x and even with unistaling all of the previous vc redist versionsi still get this issue

Unless dioxine's mediafire link gives me the download for 97D,but now im getting really confused with downloading the dll file both manualy and with the dll fixer installing it in system32.

86x is for 32 bit right?Or do i need a specific version of the api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0 dll file? (im pretty sure i havent downloaded the 64 bit version of it)

Interestingly i get the same problem even without vcredist 86x installed.

Made a clean install and i still got the same exe crash about ucrtbase.terminate and the api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1010.dll not being found in the dynamic library.So lets take this one step at time,im going to unistall vc redist and reinstall it right now.

SupSuper just fixed a "minor cosmetic shit" in battlescape load screen.My day just got brighter! Love you man...

Attached are two screenshots... spot the 5 differences :)

PS: the different times don't count as differences... although I'd like to know why the heck that happens (before screen is with Yankes' EXE, which shows all saves 1 hour younger than they actually are, weird)

A cyborg is a different race which cannot be hired but can be produced. Cyborgs are processed people, with their stats unchanged except for a certain set of modifiers. Cyborgs get +10 strength, +10 reactions and +15 health, but -5 TUs and -10 Max Psi Strength (not current, unless too high).

Urist retains his name, gender, nationality and pretty much everything else, except for some stat modifiers and obviously the fact he's no longer human but cyborg, and therefore different armours apply etc.

It's doable, not even that much work.It will require a few new ruleset attributes with weird names, so don't expect this to get into vanilla :)

Just one question: why can't I just buy cyborgs and have to go through this (IMO unnecessary) procedure?If it makes it any easier, just imagine that the procedure is being done in the background... basically same abstraction as melee combat... each time I do melee frontal attack I have to imagine really hard that my soldiers are doing mega ninja moves so that they don't just get shot like dogs :)

Just one question: why can't I just buy cyborgs and have to go through this (IMO unnecessary) procedure?If it makes it any easier, just imagine that the procedure is being done in the background... basically same abstraction as melee combat... each time I do melee frontal attack I have to imagine really hard that my soldiers are doing mega ninja moves so that they don't just get shot like dogs :)

Well... But then you won't have your old soldier, right? Just a new cyborg guy. This is no fun at all. What about my characters?

Well... But then you won't have your old soldier, right? Just a new cyborg guy. This is no fun at all. What about my characters?

OK.What should happen with the squaddie's armor? Or do they have to have default armor to be admitted to the procedure and then get the default cyborg armor?Also, is it possible to make cyborgs not buyable already now somehow or do I need to add that?

EDIT: and how do you say (GUI-wise), which soldier should be robocopped?

Sorry for not posting earlier. Thanks so much for the directional indicators. I might not use them a lot, but when I do, it's the difference between life and death for my gal.

Thanks a heap. Now I've just got to convince someone to package up a new Android version of OXC, with X-Piratez and OXCE+ included in it. Those direction indicators would be great on a smaller screen, even if another small UI button needs to be added to use them. Could possibly be used as a UI element in themselves, instead of "swipe turning" (one of the worst bits of touchscreen OXC). Have them always on/all directions shown for the active soldier, then just click for facing/turning. Anyway, not your job, just a thought.

Still, very handy on PC. Especially at night with smoke around. Cheers.

Now OC support on battlescape up to three tilsets: Craft, Ufo, Terrain Each of them have the 254 tile limit.. :-\

A strategic innovation could be a feature to load custom map tilset :P

I recognize that it is a very difficult task :'(

The problem is that the more incompatible you make this build with the vanilla version, the worse it will be for modders as a whole. I mean, features about experience or extra rulesets are okay but if terrain designed for an extended end up crashing vanilla, this does more harm than good.

Since the fork got more popular than originally expected, I added also some requests from modders:- improved experience system- mission starting conditions/restrictions- some new weapon attributes, etc.

All these changes can be easily backported to original OXC.I won't be messing with:- palettes- engine (especially any stuff required to use the UFO1994 assets)- battlescape mechanics/physics- alien AI... as such changes cannot be easily backported and should be done directly in OXC (if the DEVs decide they are worth implementing)

So, feel free to ask for improvements, but don't ask for engine rewrite... I don't have time nor desire to do that.

It could be done like with Manufacturing, each item allowed a specific, custom category label (or better yet, multiple labels per item, for example laser rifle would have STR_RIFLE and STR_LASER, filter-able by both). These labels can be also used to better sort the Black Market/Fence/Vaults screens. A shortcut from any specific item on the equip list to a proper Bootypedia page would also be useful... (a tiny '?' icon next to each item?)

It could be done like with Manufacturing, each item allowed a specific, custom category label (or better yet, multiple labels per item, for example laser rifle would have STR_RIFLE and STR_LASER, filter-able by both). These labels can be also used to better sort the Black Market/Fence/Vaults screens.

Yes, I was actually thinking exactly about this yesterday and wanted to ask you if you are willing to update all items.

Now, we have this hardcoded filter on Craft Equipment screen (aux, melee, short range, long range, etc.)... but I would like to softcode it using freely definable (multiple) categories.

I would then use it in:- Craft Equipment (instead of hardcoded rules)- Inventory (as requested here)- Buy/Sell/Vaults/etc.- probably ufopedia too

A plea to fix an age-old deficiency... Could the Pedia read accuracyMelee and melee TU Cost from Battletype: 3 items (melee weapon) and display them, like it displays accuracies and and TU costs for ranged weapons? It would save a lot of writing for modders and a lot of reading small letters for the players... :)

A plea to fix an age-old deficiency... Could the Pedia read accuracyMelee and melee TU Cost from Battletype: 3 items (melee weapon) and display them, like it displays accuracies and and TU costs for ranged weapons? It would save a lot of writing for modders and a lot of reading small letters for the players... :)

Neat, huh? Except for the small problem that I want to have eight checks per month for this mission, since one is too little. So the block above has to be repeated eight times as type: CultActivityDagon, type: CultActivityDagon1, type: CultActivityDagon2 ...... type: CultActivityDagon7.It would be much nicer to be able to set it under just one entry, just with multiple starts:

A plea to fix an age-old deficiency... Could the Pedia read accuracyMelee and melee TU Cost from Battletype: 3 items (melee weapon) and display them, like it displays accuracies and and TU costs for ranged weapons? It would save a lot of writing for modders and a lot of reading small letters for the players... :)

I don't get it... if 8% is too low the increase it to 50% for example.And if one UFO per month is not enough, then make this mission have more than one wave.

What am I missing?

That 8% has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is: I want a mission that happens 8 times per month but as a one mission entry, not 8 separate mission script entries. Because these eight mission scripts are exactly the same, except for the delay (because they're supposed to happen at different times of month).

That 8% has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is: I want a mission that happens 8 times per month but as a one mission entry, not 8 separate mission script entries. Because these eight mission scripts are exactly the same, except for the delay (because they're supposed to happen at different times of month).

I think Yankes has implemented something that allows you to copy stuff in ruleset without actually copying it... some referencing magic.You can just define it once and then do 8 copies and just change the startDelay for example...

I think Yankes has implemented something that allows you to copy stuff in ruleset without actually copying it... some referencing magic.You can just define it once and then do 8 copies and just change the startDelay for example...

I don't have an example, but maybe look in the OXCE thread.

`refNode` in 2.9 It allow merge common values from two nodes. This is work around lack of `<<` that should be supported by yaml-cpp.Example:

As promised, I made a wishlist of possible features that Dioxiner and I pulled from documentation left by Bladum. Some of them are relatively simple, others less so, but they're all things that were deemed to be beneficial.

Here it is:

1. New flag for alien mission waves: randomTrajectory.Description: You don't make a trajectory for the UFO. Instead, you only define missionZone, spawnZone, landingZone, maxSpeed, minSpeed and numberOfWaypoints. This creates some random trajectory using this input.Benefit: More variation and unpredictability with UFOs, plus less gruelling work for modders.

2. Item decay.Description: When set for an item, every day there is a chance that this item will decay (desappear). For example setting it at 0.02 for Elerium means that 2% of your Elerium will disappear per day, on average.Benefit: Unspecified as of now, but will probably be a useful tool for modders.

3. A psiScanner flag for an item.Description: Nakes it work just like the Motion Scanner, but using psi vision. All units are visible, regardless of movement. The palette on the scanner is swapped from green to blue (background) and from orange to purple (flashing points). Alternatively it doesn't use any interface, just makes all aliens within a set radius count as spotted (are visible in the battlescape).Benefit: A moderately cool gadget, with possible further advances if we work on alien psi more.

4. An psiCloaking flag for an armour (directly related to psiScanner).Description: Makes the unit invisible to psiScanners. By default set to true for mechanical units and to false for other units, but you can set it manually. This flag also disallows alien Psi attacks/psi spotting unless aliens are within LOS (same for player's Psi attacks). May also make an unit impossible to scan with a Mind Probe.Benefit: More tactical depth (units that are invisible to psi, like HWPs), more space for new armours (cloaking).

5. Melee reactions.Description: Enable melee weapons to react like shooting weapons. Additionally, a new flag reactionFireBonus for weapons (melee weapons here, but possibly for all weapons), that would modify the soldier's reaction tests. For example, swords would have a large reactionFireBonus, which would make attacks made by them much harder to react to. I also suggest making it a new option, named Extended Reactions.Benefit: A direct improvement to combat mechanics. Possibly more space for new weapons.

6. New kneelBonus flag for weapons.Description: Unhardcodes bonus to accuracy from kneeling. This flag allows you to specify how much you gain by kneeling, default 0.15 (like now). Can be negative.Benefit: New cool weapons that need to be properly set up on the ground, like machine guns. Poor accuracy when standing, great when kneeling. On the other hand, throwing knives don't get a bonus and may actually get some penalty.

7. New kneelTime flag for weapons (only relevant if the kneelBonus flag is introduced).Description: Unhardcodes TUs to kneel and stand. This flag allows you to set these two values.Benefit: Can be used to balance weapons with kneelBonus.

8. New isBiological and isMechanical flags for units.Description: You can set if your unit is mechanical or living, and therefore if it can be healed.Benefit: Right now you can't heal big units and they never bleed. This would be a big step towards a fully realized battlefield.

9. New armorRegeneration flag for armours.Description: Analoguous to the health recovery (see BANDIT_ARMOR_P1 from Piratez for details).Benefit:Ensuring domination of modders over mere players Will allow for new interesting units.

10. Penalties for head wounds.Description: Head wounds give penalty to Firing Accuracy, Throwing Accuracy and Psi Skill.Benefit: Will add more depth to the injury system. Will also be coherent with how you lose accuracy from arm wounds (assuming it was enabled in OXC).Possible further improvement: Unhardcoding penalties suffered due to Fatal Wounds.

11. Unloading weapon on the ground.Description: Clicking RMB on a weapon that's on the ground unloads it (at base/pre-battle only, like pre-priming grenades).Benefit: An obvious improvement to the UI.

12. Diversify payments by rank.Description: Allows to specify soldier salaries by their rank.Benefit: Proper recognition for the Commander!Possible further improvement: Adding soldier's rank to the stats that can give bonus damage/recovery/etc. to items.

13. Dependance of research on items.Description: Modification of needItem: true in research - if given an item name instead of the boolean, it requires that item in the stores to start research.Benefit: More research options and less awkward tree dependencies.

12. Diversify payments by rank.Description: Allows to specify soldier salaries by their rank.Benefit: Proper recognition for the Commander!Possible further improvement: Adding soldier's rank to the stats that can give bonus damage/recovery/etc. to items.

10. Penalties for head wounds.Description: Head wounds give penalty to Firing Accuracy, Throwing Accuracy and Psi Skill.Benefit: Will add more depth to the injury system. Will also be coherent with how you lose accuracy from arm wounds (assuming it was enabled in OXC).Possible further improvement: Unhardcoding penalties suffered due to Fatal Wounds.

Hum.. and what about arm wounds? Or is that already taken into account? Having leg wounds increase TUs for walking, chest wound increase energy expenditure, and arm wounds increase TUs for object use and decrease accuracy all seem as relevant as head wounds doing stuff.

Quote

12. Diversify payments by rank.Description: Allows to specify soldier salaries by their rank.Benefit: Proper recognition for the Commander!Possible further improvement: Adding soldier's rank to the stats that can give bonus damage/recovery/etc. to items.

Sure, but please add a "demote" button that returns a soldier to one rank lower. Or better yet, add a "up for promotion" toggle, so that when there are promotions, only those with the toggle on will be considered. The promotions I get are often not given to those who seem to deserve them.

5) Is done in 3.0, only drawback that it need depends on phase of moon :D (scripts will handle it)6) Will be added in 3.0 (scripts will handle it)8) Partially done by property `bleedImmune`.10) exactly same as point 6)12) special bonuses for different ranks will be again handled same as 6)

Hum.. and what about arm wounds? Or is that already taken into account? Having leg wounds increase TUs for walking, chest wound increase energy expenditure, and arm wounds increase TUs for object use and decrease accuracy all seem as relevant as head wounds doing stuff.

Yeah, AFAIK in the original game arm injuries decreased accuracy. Not sure about other such options, but your suggestions sound reasonable and fun.

Sure, but please add a "demote" button that returns a soldier to one rank lower. Or better yet, add a "up for promotion" toggle, so that when there are promotions, only those with the toggle on will be considered. The promotions I get are often not given to those who seem to deserve them.

I wouldn't want any control over this, I just don't feel suitable to judge my men. :) And I like to see who's getting recognition and who isn't, which can lead to some more distinctive personalities etc. But I wouldn't mind some mechanics similar to the Aurora game: in short, you can toggle some soldiers as your favourite pets and they'll receive a substantial bonus when rank advancement is being decided.

Well, combat experience isn't everything in most military. Non-commissioned officers (ex.: Sergeants) will often have more experience than their officer (ex.: Lieutenants) who come out of school at a later time in life, since the sergeant might have risen through the ranks and started earlier (for same age officers).

It's just that getting a mechanic that increases costs (especially in early Piratez when money is scarce) without much benefits (presumably the morale boost is similar to the risk of a big morale drop if killed) will just lead to firing of the newly promoted average soldier. I am not looking for yet more reasons to fire soldiers (too expensive for his worth, on top of too low starting stats, too low psi strength, too low something else or other).

So this mechanic only makes sense if it increases costs for retaining great soldiers, not just random rookie 11 who happened to be lucky and get the first kill, and being the first sergeant, is the only one ready to be promoted captain, then the only one ready to be promoted commander, even though he didn't do much except score the first kill.

It's just that getting a mechanic that increases costs (especially in early Piratez when money is scarce) without much benefits (presumably the morale boost is similar to the risk of a big morale drop if killed) will just lead to firing of the newly promoted average soldier. I am not looking for yet more reasons to fire soldiers (too expensive for his worth, on top of too low starting stats, too low psi strength, too low something else or other).

So this mechanic only makes sense if it increases costs for retaining great soldiers, not just random rookie 11 who happened to be lucky and get the first kill, and being the first sergeant, is the only one ready to be promoted captain, then the only one ready to be promoted commander, even though he didn't do much except score the first kill.

Dude, it's a bit mindblowing what you're saying. :)Really you would sack a soldier for something as insignificant as an extra $10000? Really?I just find it... way beyond extremes of micromanagement, to be honest. Anyway I don't believe in any other reason for sacking soldiers than maybe low Psi Strength, because you can't compensate for that.Anyway, you'd get the same thing after the next mission, so.

1 - The change is salary is small enough to be overlooked, so it doesn't affect your retention of promoted soldiers. (sort of what you are implying here) Since the mechanic has no significant effect on the game, it was implemented for...? cosmetics? This could be improved...

2 - The change in salary is significant and affects gameplay. By affecting gameplay it means that it gives a new trade-off to the player: Keep an old soldier and pay more, or not (= sack old soldier and get a new one + hope that the next promotion is given to a meaningful soldier). This is not an implementation I have any interest in.

3 - Implement the mechanic such that promotions increase the cost to keep the promoted soldier but also implement something that gives the player some control on who gets promoted. Then I can chose those for whom it is sensible to spend more, and those where it isn't. Then it isn't building on the already silly pseudo-random promotion (I already dislike when mediocre/average soldiers are promoted, since that means a soldier that used to be going in risky situations now has to be preserved because of the morale hit taken if they die. I'd rather promotions be given to soldiers that I already value). Your suggestion of "pet soldiers" who have more likelihood (but not 100%) to be promoted sounds cool for this.

Obviously, I prefer #3, which is why I commented: The initial idea was worth discussing but I consider it could benefit from implementing two mechanics to create a better gameplay experience:- promotions increase cost (and maybe other things)- player can impact promotions (which I think is a feature I wouldn't be the only person to enjoy any ways)

I actually agree with you 100% Arthanor, but in relation to vanilla (or FMP and such). In Piratez, I think veterans are more valuable and therefore more needed.And I admit it's a cosmetic thing. I wouldn't like for the rank to mean too much, after all it's just a symbol. :)

Yup, the value of a veteran will vary depending on mods and I'd agree that they are most valuable in Piratez. That'll just mean cost changes need to be adjusted between mods, which woyld make sense.

I'd be expecting a Pirate Queen to be making multiple times what a swabbie makes, but the difference between a rookie and a commander. Unless they're commie pirate freedom fighters, then everybody should make the same ;)

And I'd definitely be up for rank having more of an impact if it also costs more. Like if your officer is waving the flag (or hitting you with an officer cane) being more effective.

Why disallow using outfits, just hit the with a penalty if their rank isn't high enough (and a bonus if it is) :)I will definitely add large salary differences between ranks. If you don't like the promotions and would like to sack a veteran... yeah, your problem and your choice; I actually like it as it means that not every soldier is destined to die in this game :) Too bad another soldier will be promoted soon :) Also you actually CAN control promotions by switching the 'battlefield promotions only' option. But high salary for ranking officers would definitely add another (soft) limiting factor on the size of your force: exponential growth of salaries. So, in addition to keeping the initial operation smaller, you will have another thing to do with money once you're filthy rich.

You can keep a soldier in the training facility and also train them in the psi lab at the same time. Could these be exclusive, like in X-Com: Apocalypse?Speaking of training, would it be possible to make the training buildings train specified stats only? (So we could have a gym and a shooting range, for example.)

Could be a bug, could be incorrect installation, but I thought I'd let you know.

EDIT:

Another idea: continuous research. A research mechanics that would work like this:- You add a continuousResearch flag to a research.- After it is researched, you can researched it again.- If researched again, the game removes it from researched: section and then adds it again.- You can repeat it indefinitely.

Why?Intelligence projects.You have a research called, say, "track hybrid convoy", enabled by some other research related to hybrids. When researched, it spawns a mission with hybrid convoys appearing on the globe. It represents the effort of acquiring intelligence data to catch the hybrids in the act. But then you can do it again, to spawn another hybrid mission, and so on.

I'm not sure about the mechanics of research project disappearing, but I'm sure you all get the idea.

Maybe it could be considered as part of the "mutually exclusive researches" request?

So the only point of this research topic is to spawn alien missions at will?

You're really going too far with this I think...The players will have big problems understanding these weird manufacturing and research mechanics if you keep misusing them like this.

I'll put it on the list, it's not hard to do... just saying things like this may discourage people (including myself) from playing your mod at all. It's similar to Dioxine's "you need to manufacture dynamite/pillow book/etc. to be able to research it"... it is possible to explain it and it may even make sense afterwards... but most people just say WTF?! and stop caring, or worse stop playing... because it is not intuitive and not consistent.

So the only point of this research topic is to spawn alien missions at will?

You're really going too far with this I think...The players will have big problems understanding these weird manufacturing and research mechanics if you keep misusing them like this.

I'll put it on the list, it's not hard to do... just saying things like this may discourage people (including myself) from playing your mod at all. It's similar to Dioxine's "you need to manufacture dynamite/pillow book/etc. to be able to research it"... it is possible to explain it and it may even make sense afterwards... but most people just say WTF?! and stop caring, or worse stop playing... because it is not intuitive and not consistent.

Yeah, you are right... Point taken. I thought that naming the research "Scan for hybrid convoys" and adding a respective Ufopaedia page saying "we've located it, research again to locate more" would suffice, but then I realized that you can't have a respective Ufopaedia page, because it wouldn't make sense for it to stuck in the Ufopaedia section. Maybe something else can be devised.But the exclusive research request definitely stands; I don't really need it myself, at least not at this point, but I know the X-Piratez mod does.

While I think such an 'endless research' mechanic is needless, I need to comment on this whole 'intuitive' thing. In a game, intuitive leads to boring. There's no exhilaration of connecting the dots and making a discovery; sure, it can be too hard, but I don't think it's the case with Piratez. Yeah maybe a player ragequits just because he was missing what was in front of his eyes, but that's all the better - why should I care about someone looking for an easy pleasure? If he can't figure it out in-game and get the highest prize of shouting 'Eureka!' (or laughing manically), there is always looking up a walkthrough (rulesets, online Pedia). If that's still too much, such a person is clearly someone who should've never start playing this mod.Intuitive is of paramount importance in utility software, not in a game - a game is often a riddle. You're lucky I don't like riddles all that much :P

I wonder, are there any plans/ideas wrt phasing-out items that are no longer relevant as the game progresses?

E.g. have some "don't ever show me this in any of the lists" key that would, when pressed on item (e.g. in "vaults" tab):

- Sell all current stockpiles of an item.- Remove item from all equipment and buy/sell lists.- Will keep item listed in "loot" tab, but will auto-sell all new instances of it.- Maybe keep item in the "vaults" list, so that same key can be used there to un-blacklist item.

Maybe my quirk, but I've found that going through most equipment lists becomes rather tedious chore fast, listing every tiny revolver and dagger there.Such thing seem to be somewhat orthogonal to existing "categories" concept, unfortunately, as it'd affect all of them.

There was a mention someplace here in the board about setting up things to sell from the post mission loot screen. Perhaps that's where something like these cutoffs could be. Vaults are unaffected but no more umpteen pistols to deal with.

That's a lot of fuss over nothing IMO. But Meridian's code allows multiple categories per item (hell yes!). I will try make the categories (hopefully) helpful, such as 'select tier 2+ guns only', 'select tier 3+ guns only' etc. to alleviate the problem. I usually simply build more vaults/take more slaves and clear useless stuff only when I feel like doing so.

That's a lot of fuss over nothing IMO. But Meridian's code allows multiple categories per item (hell yes!). I will try make the categories (hopefully) helpful, such as 'select tier 2+ guns only', 'select tier 3+ guns only' etc. to alleviate the problem. I usually simply build more vaults/take more slaves and clear useless stuff only when I feel like doing so.

Do you mean using item categories as a starting loadout criteria? Because I was thinking about exactly the same thing last night. A mission which only allows items with STR_PISTOLS tag or something like that. (With all current mechanics intact, so you can for example exclude Magnum because it's too big or whatever.)

I meant auto-selling as a way to get rid of the invisible things, the main point being clearing up buy/sell/manufacture lists, of course.Guess one way to do that with categories would be to simply edit the yaml and have all this stuff neatly split from the rest there, so indeed, maybe easy enough already... just gotta look into how categories work more closely.

Check out how do they work now and propose some improvements maybe? An item can belong to any number of categories. The categories only work for equipment screen, but they should be improved to cover buy/sell/vaults menus as well. Option to sort alphabetically would also help...

Another minor request, this time with memorial screen... Would it be possible (as an optional soldier race parameter) to set a default armor that is given to anyone who died, replacing whatever the soldier was wearing (which got destroyed or looted anyway...)? It would make checking and comparing their stats easier if all were buried in the same armor. Also I think that if said armor was boosting Psi Skill by any number, you'd learn their Psi Power (post-mortem) as well.

Just dropping this by in case you would like to include the advanced scanner in your executable. It's not much work and no doubt it'd be easy for you, but since I did it I figured I'd share it too. This is a patch file that goes from the 70dc234e0134d971471d119bd4c2cdaa449fa8e2 commit on April 15th in your repo.

It adds the advanced scanner, enabled as an advanced option in the battlescape section.

Patch and screenshot within Piratez attached below. I'm thinking the "scan" is not necessary since I picked the yellow box, but I haven't decided to remove it yet since I haven't played with it much so far.

Yeah, the "scan" doesn't really hurt. It just feels odd to see writing in an otherwise graphical/figurative interface.

As it is in the patch, the advanced scanner draws boxes corresponding to the radar blips at the level where you are currently watching. So in the screenshot above, it looks like it is pointing at a 2x2 unit and a 1x1, both on the ground, but if I look at higher levels, then it says that they are at higher levels. So it keeps the z-level ambiguity of the motion scanner, you just don't need to keep a screenshot of the scanner.

Admittedly, that makes it much better than the vanilla scanner where you would have to rescan and waste TUs if you forgot something since now things are drawn so you can't forget or miscount. I'm sure Meridian could integrate the currently advanced option into a new mechanic for an advanced scanner item as well (leading to a "battle intelligence outfit" that comes with an in-built scanner and requires more advanced research than the Aye-Phone?).

As it is, I find it much nicer to use than the old version scanner. No more counting and no more disadvantage/frustration for having a terrible memory (I don't look to XCom to train my memory and don't enjoy that or having to take out a pencil and paper or screenshot), but I can understand the need to integrate this in a different way as well.

Q: How does, exactly, the new corpse recovery system work, because it gets more confusing by the second? What needs what flag? What if battle corpse is the same as the geo corpse? Where do recovery points should be declared? How do 2x2 units behave? Why do I get battle corpses insted of geo corpses after finishing interrogations?

Q: How does, exactly, the new corpse recovery system work, because it gets more confusing by the second? What needs what flag? What if battle corpse is the same as the geo corpse? Where do recovery points should be declared? How do 2x2 units behave? Why do I get battle corpses insted of geo corpses after finishing interrogations?

This is the change I made: https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/commit/d77a622a90d20c666b22752386e1659df239c6d8

As you may see I have changed:- only Debriefing (i.e. after mission recovery), nothing else- I have added one more conditions (recoverable=true) just before the alien corpses are recovered... it shouldn't affect anything else- alien corpses are recovered in two cases: if they are killed, or if they are stunned and there is no containment

Of course, it is always possible that I accidentally broke something, if something doesn't work as described, give me an example and I will investigate.

----

As for the other questions:1. Engine always recovers geoCorpses, never battleCorpses2. However, if corpseGeo is empty it is automatically filled with the corpseBattle (as if it was defined in the ruleset)3. For big units (2x2), the first corpseBattle is used to fill the empty corpseGeo4. To retrieve dead or live aliens... the recoveryPoints must be greater than 0 and battleType must be "corpse".... otherwise nothing is recovered5. To disable recovery of dead aliens, you can now specify recovery: false on the geoCorpse ... which should be the only change I made

EDIT: if by any chance you are still using corpseItem, then this can also fill the empty corpseGeo... corpseItem is the old corpseBattle from the old days

Everything works fine for me, except that interrogated people are still leaving corpses, even though they aren't supposed to have geoCorpses. I understand why it happens, but can anything be done about this?

Everything works fine for me, except that interrogated people are still leaving corpses, even though they aren't supposed to have geoCorpses. I understand why it happens, but can anything be done about this?

What exactly do I need to do?There are like 7 different types of interrogation in piratez (normal research, manufacturing of broken guy, research of broken guy, slavery, robbery, etc.)... please exact steps to reproduce.

What exactly do I need to do?There are like 7 different types of interrogation in piratez (normal research, manufacturing of broken guy, research of broken guy, slavery, robbery, etc.)... please exact steps to reproduce.

I was referring to normal, vanilla interrogation of caught aliens - or in my case, mostly people.After you interrogate, say, a cultist, you're left with their corpse. Even though 1) they shouldn't have geoCorpses because they're just normal people, nothing to research here, and 2) this implies that they are killed during interrogation, which is wrong for what is essentially police force.I don't really have any concept how to fix it.

Ugh, there will be no save as I run out of topics for Cultists research a long time ago, and got rid of the corpses too. But it was happening every time. Might be because Solar has GeoCorpses undefined for cultists (only BattleCorpses). If it is the reason for cultists leaving corpses after interrogation, no need to fix anything IMO. As for Piratez, indeed enemies leave their GeoCorpses after interrogation - their GeoCorpses being stuff like Durathread or Personal Databases. So it's fine.

Yes, normal research. And they should - they always did. But the version you have is not yet fixed to follow your changes. Maybe they have recover: false or something. Solar has recover: false too, but lacks GeoCorpses, so maybe somehow it's circumventing one another. Hope you didn't mess up something... But I wouldn't blame you - the whole intertwined corpse recovery/live capture/live research mess is black magic; took me months to learn how to do it correctly. I'm actually horrified you touched it, it could mean few more months to learn how this whole thing EXACTLY works NOW :)

Maybe doing the live research should return a corpse only if that unit's corpseGeo is recoverable?

That way Piratez interrogations can still give booty (The gals keep their stuff, which makes sense). It works for XCom to be left with a corpse after interrogating aliens, unless aliens survive (which if aliens are kept would allow interrogation farming and so can't happen, or aliens are released, which also doesn't make sense). XCom should be left with a corpse. But Solarius, by setting his cultist corpses as recover: false won't be left with a corpse after interrogating cultists, as he would like.

That's not exactly as straightforward, as there are beings that do have recoverable corpses, but shouldn't be killed; for example a hybrid, who is pretty much a normal guy except for some details which should be studied in the lab from a corpse.We're discussing it with Meridian on the chat and something probably will happen with it at some point. :P

EDIT: I have a possible bug to report. With the "everybody fights, no-one quits" enabled, when my base was attacked, the game seemed to hung up during the equipping phase (couldn't get it to display anything else than my dog), then, after a couple of minutes, mission started, giving me no possibility to equip soldiers (the initial health damage mechanic, however, worked!). Regrettably, the attack came out of the blue and there is no save.

I had something similar now, probably what happened to you too.

If you have a crap-ton-squared items on the ground during equipment phase, changing between units and scrolling inventory lags quite a lot (1-2 seconds in my case).

I had 8 parrots, which come first in equipment, and I started clicking to get to girls.... first few times I didn't see any change (because parrots have no name and same inventory and there is no audio feedback on those buttons) and since it was already about 10 seconds of no change (8 parrots * 1-2 seconds), I thought my mouse was not working or something, so I clicked like crazy about 20 times... game accepted all clicks, and was stuck (without refresh) until all 20 clicks were processed... which took about half a minute... then I finally saw one of my girls... and recalled this comment...

As far as I can say, no bug, just slow (regardless of the "everybody fights" setting).

I've had the exact difficulty you describe meridian once or twice. I thought it was just me comp being slow. I too had a very large storage problem i was running at approximately 200 equipment items when it happened.

Could be a good idea to check the code what possibly could be causing such a huge lag (I'm experiencing it too). It seems however to be more dependant on the number of gals than items (hard to say really, as those go hand-in hand, so I might be wrong).

That's not exactly as straightforward, as there are beings that do have recoverable corpses, but shouldn't be killed; for example a hybrid, who is pretty much a normal guy except for some details which should be studied in the lab from a corpse.We're discussing it with Meridian on the chat and something probably will happen with it at some point. :P

So it was changed as previously discussed, I guess.. Which I still find weird.

It makes sense in the hybrid case (you might run an autopsy and do more research on a dead hybrid you find, but not kill one during interrogation just to get a corpse to do more research on), but I find it odd in Piratez and counter-intuitive for aliens.

In Piratez, not at least robbing them of their valuables (the old booty) seems unlikely, given that we kill, enslave or rob people generally. Maybe, knowledge as a ransom it acceptable, it still impresses me that the gals don't at least grab some of their loot/armor. I mean, you give a Marsec Bodyguard his power armor back after spending days interrogating him so he can walk away?

And with aliens, what does that represent? You let the alien get away after they tell you about stuff? XCom wouldn't do that.. Or the alien gets chopped to bits useless for autopsy during the interrogation? I guess one can make live alien interrogations automatically unlock the autopsy topic, to represent the deadly interrogation and following autopsy.

The explanation possibilities are endless: - lock them up in alternate facility, hope for more valuable info later - brainwash them and make them double agents - VIP prisoner exchange (commander for commander) - interrogation was so brutal, that nobody would buy such corpse anymore (who's buying them anyway?) - send them to biological weapons testing facility - etc.

You name it... keeping a live prisoner is always better, unless they are really absolutely of no use... which I can barely imagine.

If all else fails... the option is called "SPEND items"... it should not summon items... even vanilla doesn't... this option should be even more restrictive.

I guess going by the option's name it makes sense indeed. It just seems to me like the previous behavior was better in Pirate and for vanilla. I guess it's one of the few things I like with the new xcom. Maybe the option should have been called "XCom:2012 style item research" or some such.

I agree that a live prisoner is more valuable than a corpse, it's just that the "disappearance" means none of that value is perceptible in the game right now, whereas at least getting corpses/loot allowed a set of stories that made sense to me.

Maybe I'll make a new "interrogations return corpses if recoverable" option. Or just let it slide.. that's much easier!

I'd agree, something on the live alien "item" that gets checked at the end of the research project to determine if you give a corpse or not could make sense. Default true but can be used for things like your hybrid? I'd expect the number cases where you don't want a corpse to be fewer.

sell screen works fine! The STR_LOOT and STR_STATS are missing, though, as is the STR for the new option. What about the flags, is that usable for XPiratez?

EXE doesn't contain any translations.You can either add them into your ruleset, or wait for the next piratez version update.

Flags are usable.There are as many nationalities as there are name files.Just copy the "Pirate.nam" file as many times as you wish and then create a mod similar to this: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4442.msg61114.html#msg61114

Ahem, may I ask for something little and maybe easy to do? Could the Ufopaedia section be split into guns/melee/equipment/treasures etc. instead of one huge list of weapons AND equipment? It would make finding and searching so much easier? :)

I am not sure if this is an exe or an rul-file problem, so please allow me to post my wish here.

Ahem, may I ask for something little and maybe easy to do? Could the Ufopaedia section be split into guns/melee/equipment/treasures etc. instead of one huge list of weapons AND equipment? It would make finding and searching so much easier? :)

I am not sure if this is an exe or an rul-file problem, so please allow me to post my wish here.

It's both exe and rul... I would need to add sub-category attribute to ufopedia articles and dioxine would have to subcategorize the articles :)

Just a small question: Would it be possible to save the state in which the personal lights (L-button thing) are into the savegames? I can't tell you how often I reloaded (my gals stealthed and hiding) saves, just to run around with lights (and thus ruining my stealth) before I realize they are on again...

Are you first opening the proper hand's action menu? (ie clicking on the weapon/item that you want to use, or pressing the keys to do so, default are q and e). The shortcut is for selecting an option once the menu is open, not to go directly from walking about to shooting.

I just realized that using the clear inventory button or load template button on a gal with pre-primed grenades drops the grenades live on the floor for a bit of a surprise a turn later... :) Due to the number of inventory items in a typical equip screen this can be a bit hard to catch manually, so I made a tiny fix and attached it to this post. Prime-able items are now reset when either of these buttons drops the item.

Tried 30 during a railyard-terrain pogrom and boy is this a boost or what?! :oNo stutter, no slowdown, no waiting, nothing. It's like having a 5 year newer new computer.

Atm I have an enemy base to destroy and will try 40, but just seeing the extremely high performance of the 30 setting I already know it will be working fine.One thought, though: Will the view-range-limits on certain armors (some have 16 day-view-range) have to be adjusted then?

Another new feature request: remembering equipment for HWP. I use two parrots and they each carry a smoke, which I have to give and prime every time. It's a small thing, but it would be nice to skip it.

Another new feature request: remembering equipment for HWP. I use two parrots and they each carry a smoke, which I have to give and prime every time. It's a small thing, but it would be nice to skip it.

That would be a horribly big change to HWPs... not worth the effort... really.Better make parrots a new soldier type... and then I can make a small change to limit the number of soldiers of certain type per craft.

Had a base mission, then a mutant pogrom mission and used a viewrange of 40. The performance is top-notch, no problems at all, it is still WAY faster than everything before. One thing changed, though: I got a lot of reaction fire (and aimed shots) from far-off distances, it felt like a real battlefield. This exe-change really adds to the game!

I would have another idea for a feature: craft repair as a workshop item.

Instead of crafts getting magically repaired for free you have to allocate runts and resources to repair a damaged craft. The repair should then also be seperated from the refuel and rearm mechanic so that you can refuel and rearm a damaged craft if you don't have the time/money to repair it.

I have no idea how hard it is to code that so please don't hate me if it is way too complicated/impossible.

Another idea related to crafts: efficient rearmOnly fill up ammo as long as you can fit a whole mag. So far this has not been a problem as ammo was cheap and available. But for salvaged Gauss Cannon rounds that cannot be bought or manufactured I would not want to spend a whole mag to replace one round.

The performance boost from the FoV changes are amazing the game now runs faster with view distance set to 40 than it just to with only 20.

And a feature request: It would be nice, if you could get the 'sell' button in production screen to actually work for crafts as well (since there is one in Piratez that is basically merchandise) as well moving the check for available hangers back to when the production actually starts instead of when you increase the number to produce.

Another idea related to crafts: efficient rearmOnly fill up ammo as long as you can fit a whole mag. So far this has not been a problem as ammo was cheap and available. But for salvaged Gauss Cannon rounds that cannot be bought or manufactured I would not want to spend a whole mag to replace one round.

You can control it manually by switching a gun off just before it hits the ammo threshold (click on a gun icon to do so).

Also, the trouble with tank ammo seems unresolved. I'm getting over 300 shells back after each mission with Hovertank/Devastator (after firing a few out of a clip of 48). It might be related to the fact that the secondary weapon has an ammo count of 360 (but it doesn't use any clips).

I don't want the secondary weapons (machineguns of all sorts) to have unlimited ammo.

Also, a request for upgrade... definiable position of the equipment stash within a craft? (current behaviour if undefined).I also think we can safely move to the new FOV calc formula. It allows to completely change the game experience, while also allowing people with weak machines to play the game w/o any trouble.

Feature request: The ability to define the equipment stash in Vessel maps.

This would allow the map builder to define a particular tile as the equipment tile, instead of being hard coded to the #1 spawn point. The Bonaventura, for example has the #1 spawn point set aggressively next to the ramp which can make the stash vulnerable to enemy fire. Wouldn't it be nice to move it upstairs and thus more protected? Also, if you take a Sentry Gun (Nice, tanky, immobile HWP) guess where it spawns... Yup. Right on top of the pile. No chance to grab reloads from the pile, you'll have scavenge enemies now.

I suppose an alternative method might be to loosen the ability to define HWP spawn points. You could define a tile as a 1X1 or 2X2 or both. It would be free from the "Drop all HWPs into the Nodes in numeric order until HWPs are gone. Then fill in with soldiers" logic as it currently stands. It think this path would make things easier for guys like Solarius that are trying to figure out how one agent can take his dog in a rental car, and not have someone crash the game by trying to stuff a tank into there. ;)

It think this path would make things easier for guys like Solarius that are trying to figure out how one agent can take his dog in a rental car, and not have someone crash the game by trying to stuff a tank into there. ;)

Is that something that has actually happened, or just theoretical?

Reason i ask is that according to the vanilla code i've seen for the craft equipment screen a HWP should not be allowed on board if its size (defined by it's armor) exceeds the number of free soldier slots. If this is no longer the case it could warrant a bug report (especially if it is reproducible in vanilla oxc as well).

The new exe/changed inventory stacker (I guess) causes my game to freeze and eventually crash if I try to open the inventory while standing on top of a corpse or live alien. I don't have the same problem with other inventory stacks or the previous version.

For some reason, you can't just mod the Bonny. I found that out when trying to change the unit deployment scheme. You have to use "delete: STR_VENTURA", then paste the entry as it was in the mod to redefine it, with your new values in.

REPORT: yes, it only works when editing the original Piratez.rul file.

You can change the "deployment" and "craftInventoryTile" attributes of any craft only if your mod contains also the "battlescapeTerrainData" attribute... not exactly sure why, but it's implemented like this.

Not sure if this is important, but when I change the bonny that way^ the game CTDs when trying to edit the loadout in the Battle Generator. Interestingly when I do not try to edit the loadout and skip directly to launch, it works...

I can't test atm if it works in the game itself, as I sold the bonny and use other crafts.

Watching your playthrough on YT it occurred to me that some people might gain from having the heading in the Shipping-XY window represented as an arrow in addition to the "North-West" or whatever it is.It might take a little thought so the old look would be preserved.

New request: surrendering enemies.What does it mean? That enemies may surrender, automatically ending the battle (same as if they were stunned).Why? Because chasing last unarmed civilians around the map is not both unethical and embarrassing (and a loss of time).Is it tricky to implement (design-wise)? Yes, but I would like to propose a method to fit it into the game.

So here it goes:New flag for units: canSurrender. (If not present, this rule doesn't apply at all.) Meant for human enemies mostly.How does it work? If all enemy units left on the battlefield are panicked, and all of them have this flag, the battle automatically ends - you just sweep them off the floor.

So here it goes:New flag for units: canSurrender. (If not present, this rule doesn't apply at all.) Meant for human enemies mostly.How does it work? If all enemy units left on the battlefield are panicked, and all of them have this flag, the battle automatically ends - you just sweep them off the floor.

Maybe even simpler: if all remaining enemy units have that flag, and are all below a global Morale threshold (settable, default = 50) at the end of their turn, they all surrender and mission ends with them being your captives.

Watching your playthrough on YT it occurred to me that some people might gain from having the heading in the Shipping-XY window represented as an arrow in addition to the "North-West" or whatever it is. It might take a little thought so the old look would be preserved. Maybe in the upper right corner of the window?

Possible, but I don't see a point in having the same information twice.

Maybe even simpler: if all remaining enemy units have that flag, and are all below a global Morale threshold (settable, default = 50) at the end of their turn, they all surrender and mission ends with them being your captives.

Seems like a lot of work (for a modder) for no real benefit.I'll put it on the list, should be easy to implement... but hard to test.

Using morale could make sense, but yes a surrendering mechanic for the last few guys could be so helpful.

I find the last 1-2 enemies the most dangerous part of the mission (as they can see me), and they are usually responsible for my losses. And even if they are maybe panicked for one round, they will gain morale in the next round, pick up a weapon and kill me... if it gets implemented, it will definitely be an option and I will turn it off in my games.

The benefit is enormous. The vanilla behaviour is fine for aliens - they are allowed to behave inhumanly, because they're aliens. The same routines applied to human enemies are inadequate and a bit ridiculous to watch.

I find the last 1-2 enemies the most dangerous part of the mission (as they can see me), and they are usually responsible for my losses. And even if they are maybe panicked for one round, they will gain morale in the next round, pick up a weapon and kill me... if it gets implemented, it will definitely be an option and I will turn it off in my games.

And that is why I said "panicking only" - I didn't want to change too much. But we can discuss that.

I find the last 1-2 enemies the most dangerous part of the mission (as they can see me), and they are usually responsible for my losses. And even if they are maybe panicked for one round, they will gain morale in the next round, pick up a weapon and kill me... if it gets implemented, it will definitely be an option and I will turn it off in my games.

Yes, and I rarely have this issue myself because I spread out gals and sweep maps carefully.

Yes, I was talking about Warboy's "civilians can use weapons" new feature.

Also, the morale thing looks fine. If you have one random academy researcher or trader GO hiding in a closet, it's not all that fun or gratifying to hunt her down. Now, if it's a chryssalid, I'm sure Dioxine wouldn't set those to "surrender: True" or whatever, so you will have to relive Alien ;)

Possible, but I don't see a point in having the same information twice.

The point of providing any information in a more accessible format is to cut out people thinking over what the information is communicating and instead make them spend their time using said information. :3I watched someone spend 3x3 seconds in a single episode mulling over where the crafts are heading.

Edit: Obviously it might not be worth it for you. God knows.Love the YT campaign btw.

Seems like a lot of work (for a modder) for no real benefit.I'll put it on the list, should be easy to implement... but hard to test.

I think better way to implement this would be adding scripts that will handle it. With that modder will have lot of freedom on defining how to end mission.This could be different for each mission (in "assassin mission" you could win after one kill). This could go too in opposite direction, if you loose lot of unit and your team panic, battle could end too. This will all depend on that will be calculate in scripts.

Had anyone had any luck with compliling x64 linux executable? I keep hitting the same quite random crash (doesn't happen with downloaded 32bit exes) and would like to know if someone ever did it successfully, or the code base is knee-deep in int/ptr-width bugs, or was that known to work, but bit-rotted and can realistically be fixed or what.

(besides, minimising the window really messes up my window manager, and every option apply recenters the window which gets real annoying on two monitors, but I can't fix that until I can compile something not crashing right away)

system: xubuntu trusty x64codebase:origin https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom.git (fetch)* master 9d44544 Multiple calls to SDL_GetVideoMode crash on various systems. Users will just have to manually restart after changing the Window Position option.

codebase:origin https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom.git (fetch)* master 9d44544 Multiple calls to SDL_GetVideoMode crash on various systems. Users will just have to manually restart after changing the Window Position option.

FYI, "master" is just a copy of SupSuper's vanilla repo... you need the branch from the first post if you want any of my changes.

Yes, I was talking about Warboy's "civilians can use weapons" new feature.

I spent 3+ hours trying to cherry-pick even the first (tiny) commit for this feature.After giving up hope on automatic merge because of different line endings (and yes, I tried the first 10 ways I could google to do it... all failed), I eventually merged it by hand... yes, by hand.Still, it doesn't compile:- because it requires also next commit (wouldn't be so bad)- and because it depends on at least another 2 previous commits, which I really can't be bothered to search for and painfully cherry-pick and test

If anyone has nerves from steel, feel free to do it... I'll happily commit your PR.

PS: once (if at all) Yankes merges OXC into OXCE, I am really not looking forward to re-implementing half of OXCE+ again because it's gonna be incompatible with both OXC and OXCE :(

I spent 3+ hours trying to cherry-pick even the first (tiny) commit for this feature.After giving up hope on automatic merge because of different line endings (and yes, I tried the first 10 ways I could google to do it... all failed), I eventually merged it by hand... yes, by hand.Still, it doesn't compile:- because it requires also next commit (wouldn't be so bad)- and because it depends on at least another 2 previous commits, which I really can't be bothered to search for and painfully cherry-pick and test

If anyone has nerves from steel, feel free to do it... I'll happily commit your PR.

For the life of me I can't find that. Seriously, arcane merges are way simpler than this forum search crap. Can you please post a few pointers?

Yeah, that's reasonable time frame. (Go, go Yankes!)As much as I'd like new stuff from the nightlies, I wouldn't ask Meridian to do something that takes so much time and is ultimately futile... If it was something simple, like (I think) definable waypoints for Blaster Bombs, then maybe - but only because the gain is immediate and the code is (probably) trivial.

Something's not right. After your 'no deployment crash' fix, I'm getting these crashes every time a Comm Wave spawns. Even after adding a deployment for Comm Wave.

EDIT: this error seems to be somehow related to regions and zones, not deployments. I'll keep checking.

EDIT2: It doesn't seem to have anything to do with your code... It just seems that no UFO can be set to fly over a non-default region, because the game will crash. Damn it to hell. Unless I'm mistaken...

- type: STR_MUTANT_POGROM_DISTRESS_NO_PENALTY points: 0 objective: 3 spawnZone: 0It appears to be caused by the spawnZone and objective combination. (the region with that spawnZone has only mission zones for objective 0). Changing spawnZone to 3 appears to remove the crash, but as I don't know the intent nor have that big a familiarity with the modding system, that might change other things as well. Just saw the difference with the other pogrom mission.

- type: STR_MUTANT_POGROM_DISTRESS_NO_PENALTY points: 0 objective: 3 spawnZone: 0It appears to be caused by the spawnZone and objective combination. (the region with that spawnZone has only mission zones for objective 0). Changing spawnZone to 3 appears to remove the crash, but as I don't know the intent nor have that big a familiarity with the modding system, that might change other things as well. Just saw the difference with the other pogrom mission.

Yes, that is the final cause of the crash.

But the issue is probably somewhere else.I spent a few hours playing with it, but only managed to confuse myself even more.

I recommend starting again with the ruleset for this feature from the scratch... in VERY small increments... and test every single addition to see if it works as expected. Maybe even test individual components by changing already existing ruleset temporarily. Eventually you should find either a typo in the ruleset; or a bug or missing feature in OXC.

Solved that, it works now. Seems that it comes down to this:1. in order for UFOs to fly, a region needs all its 6 mission zones2. UFO going to spawn a terror site can only do so in zone 3These observations might be wrong, but equipping my custom region with all 6 zones and changing the spawnzone for mission to 3 fixed it.

Hey Meridian thank you for the linux executable! Anyway i am not able at the moment to run the game, the oxextended executable needs some dependencies, i managed to run the vanilla executable one as stated here (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4084.msg54350.html#msg54350) but not the one you "manufactured" :), in fact i get the error:

error while loading shared libraries: libyaml-cpp.so.0.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directoryBut as i wrote in the above mentioned link i happened to have all the dependencies/libraries installed. Maybe it's some kiond a bug in the binary or what?

error while loading shared libraries: libyaml-cpp.so.0.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directoryBut as i wrote in the above mentioned link i happened to have all the dependencies/libraries installed. Maybe it's some kiond a bug in the binary or what?

If your system comes up with that error .. chances are it is not stored on one of the standard library paths.

You're a bit out of luck though, the ubuntu version you have wont work with oxc (nor does any of the other packages supplied with 16.04). So even if the loader could locate the correct version of libyaml-cpp.so.0.5 (yes they can differ) you would have been presented with a different error.

The only way you can play oxc on 16.04 is by getting your hands on the correct version (for regular oxc it is 0.5.x, where x != 2, i don't know if extended needs a newer version). either by finding a ppa or by building libyaml yourself.

Alternatively you can try asking nicely if a version can be build with statically linked libraries (which is something i have no experience with).

I am still puzzled by the loader failure though. Could you provide me with the output of the following command?

libyaml-cpp.so.0.5 => not foundhell, apt says it is installed...i guess so it's a seriuos ubuntu 16.04 problem! But since i don't want to downgrade to 14.04 guess i'll have to resing..maybe Yankes may provide some assistence, even helping Meridian with linux binary versions?

libyaml-cpp.so.0.5 => not foundhell, apt says it is installed...i guess so it's a seriuos ubuntu 16.04 problem! But since i don't want to downgrade to 14.04 guess i'll have to resing..maybe Yankes may provide some assistence, even helping Meridian with linux binary versions?

Check this here (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4631.msg64835.html#msg64835) for getting the right YAML lib from github.

Check this here (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4631.msg64835.html#msg64835) for getting the right YAML lib from github.

Thanks, but i do not have time to study/invesitigate, so i guess i'll stop now. IN simplier words, the problem lies in ubuntu or in the binary? In the end someone eventually would kindly make a statically linked file cointaining the libs requested? Thanks again guys and keep it up!

Thanks, but i do not have time to study/invesitigate, so i guess i'll stop now. IN simplier words, the problem lies in ubuntu or in the binary? In the end someone eventually would kindly make a statically linked file cointaining the libs requested? Thanks again guys and keep it up!

The problem is that Ubuntu 16.04 uses the 0.5.2 Version of libyaml-cpp. The only thing you can do it either downgrade or upgrade the lib to a working version, version 0.5.1. or 0.5.3 or higher.

Ubuntu is tricky in this regard since they only set a list of packages which does exclude some versions of libs. In this case they picked a broken version of libyaml-cpp which is stupid but it ubuntu... (they really really should check the gitlogs before they pull in"stable" libs...)

or compile yaml-cpp as part of exe not external lib. You would need remove references to system yaml lib from `makefile.simple` and direct path to header and sources downloaded manually. Something like that is done in `makefile.mxe`.

Thanks Yankes! @Meridian: when ever the next stable linux binary will be raedy some more info (maybe a bit technical) about it would be nice, to help users. Hope again Yankes may want to help. Over and out!

@Meridian: when ever the next stable linux binary will be raedy some more info (maybe a bit technical) about it would be nice, to help users.

What more info do you need?

You can't just ask me for "more info", I have no idea what do you need... otherwise I will just tell you that when I created the binary, the sun was shining in switzerland, it was 20 degrees celsius and I had red socks and blue t-shirt on. I was drinking red wine and my neighbour's dog was barking all the time.

Oh Meridian, can you move the gunmeele Swing option BACK AGAIN to the bottom? It was in a proper place then now it's somehow back at the top. It feels really unnatural, as the swing option is the 'least important' and there it is, at the very damned top :) Or make it an option, if your opinion is as strong as mine only the other way :)

My actual argument is: when you're doing Swing, you do it 2-3 times in a quick succession. When the Swing was on bottom, it was directly under the cursor that just clicked the weapon. Now, with Swing on the top, I have to swing the mouse like crazy to do it :)

Oh Meridian, can you move the gunmeele Swing option BACK AGAIN to the bottom? It was in a proper place then now it's somehow back at the top. It feels really unnatural, as the swing option is the 'least important' and there it is, at the very damned top :) Or make it an option, if your opinion is as strong as mine only the other way :)

My actual argument is: when you're doing Swing, you do it 2-3 times in a quick succession. When the Swing was on bottom, it was directly under the cursor that just clicked the weapon. Now, with Swing on the top, I have to swing the mouse like crazy to do it :)

Yeah, I changed it back, because I did gunmelee instead of autoshot so many times since the change (just by memory without looking).

You can't just ask me for "more info", I have no idea what do you need... otherwise I will just tell you that when I created the binary, the sun was shining in switzerland, it was 20 degrees celsius and I had red socks and blue t-shirt on. I was drinking red wine and my neighbour's dog was barking all the time.

Ahah no sorry, i meant dependencies or it it woul be statically linked and so on i' m not expert...O_o and it's a pity i never had an holiday in Switzerland :'(

I've been able to to compile Meridian's source by using apt-get to install the libraries listed on ufopaedia's site, but they have to be the dev version, with -dev appended to the library name. I can come up with some better instructions when I'm not on my phone if you'd like.

I've been able to to compile Meridian's source by using apt-get to install the libraries listed on ufopaedia's site, but they have to be the dev version, with -dev appended to the library name. I can come up with some better instructions when I'm not on my phone if you'd like.

Oh yes, that would be very kind, thanks! Maybe then Meridian may merge these "istructions" in the first post :)

First, the obvious part of downloading the source from Meridian, it's the source link in his original post, I'll copy it here too: https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/tree/oxce2.9-plus-protoEither download or make a git clone, just get all the source files in a directory you can easily find with the terminal.

Next come all the required libraries, listed on https://ufopaedia.org at: https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Installing_(OpenXcom) under the instructions for Unix-like systems. We need all the dev versions, so I installed them with the command

sudo apt-get install libsdl1.2-dev libsdl-mixer1.2-dev libsdl-gfx1.2-dev libsdl-image1.2-dev libyaml-cpp-dev libboost-devNote the addition of libboost-dev - I don't remember quite why I needed it, I think it popped up as an error that it was required during my first try.

Finally, navigate in your terminal to the src folder from Meridian's files and make using the Makefile.simple that he provided:

make -f Makefile.simpleAfter a few minutes, you should have a binary that you can use! I then moved it to the Piratez directory, the same location that Dioxine puts the .exe file for Windows. Make sure it's set as executable, and you can either run it from a terminal or just double-click from a file browser.

Edit: If you're having trouble finding the executable after compiling, it was in the bin/ subfolder for me.

v2016-05-28 + Added more filtering in the New Manufacture screen, more info: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4520.msg65589.html#msg65589 + Added user option for show gun melee on top (or on bottom)

@ohartenstein23: i tryed like you wrote here (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4187.msg65619.html#msg65619) and it worked! For linux users: if you use sudo must change the user gorup otherwise you'll be able to run the binary (placed in the /bin folder after the compiling is over) only as root. Used on an older pc (took nearly an hour!) with ubuntu 14.04.

@Meridian and Yankes: executed in the terminal, and while running got the putput:

On 0.98F, while assaultin a small shipping, stunned an osiris bodyguard, went to inventory, rapied an osiris bodyguard, the body wes here but not visible (pointed by the description hoverin the cursor over) but as soon as i clicked on the corpse game crashes to desktop. Save attached. That xpiratez version seems somewhat buggy, see also here Saves and .log file attached, latest should be inizio.sav, and i'm usin english (US) language. Sry no screenshots this time.

I used last mod version, and the last custom Meridian executable. Am i missing something?

Translations are here:https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4520.msg65589.html#msg65589https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4520.msg65613.html#msg65613https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4520.msg65159.html#msg65159

SoldierDiaries was developed bit more time than 2 months and I merge 500 of 800 commit that difference between OXCE and OXC. This mean that time between merge points are not accurate to measure how much changes goes in (numbers of commits could be screwed too based how many changes go in per commit).I guess that I pull half of changes from basic version.

Some info about point 3. I was thinking about dropping it completely because I already have same functionality in OXCE. But it would break default compatibility.Because of that I made that only when weapon have default damage range it will use global values added by Warboy, exception of this is fire damage range that always get it from global range.

SoldierDiaries was developed bit more time than 2 months and I merge 500 of 800 commit that difference between OXCE and OXC. This mean that time between merge points are not accurate to measure how much changes goes in (numbers of commits could be screwed too based how many changes go in per commit).I guess that I pull half of changes from basic version.

I didn't want to make this sound "small"... I'm sure you went through hell merging all this... just wanted to say that functionality-wise, there are only 3 features a modder can notice, player will notice even less.In this release, it is definitely your new features that deserve the most attention, not the vanilla stuff.

So in short:- Diaries are in to some extent;- Diff level impact is now customizable;- If you want to make modded weapons use TFTD damage rules with a button switch, well, TOUGH LUCK (I like it) :)- and naturally, all the new Yankes' stuff... that without a tutorial is probably impossible to even comprehend (which again is GOOD, as long as Yankes writes some tutorials, or someone deciphers it by himself) :)

cool. Now all we have to do is wait... Good thing I don't have that much time for modding this summer, so I can wait more patiently :)

I didn't want to make this sound "small"... I'm sure you went through hell merging all this... just wanted to say that functionality-wise, there are only 3 features a modder can notice, player will notice even less.In this release, it is definitely your new features that deserve the most attention, not the vanilla stuff.

Right this is another way how measure changes. And each give different answer :)

Not sure if like... or rather, not like at all as an in-game thing. Should be at least blocked by an option, so the players won't think it's a core, suggested game feature (it gives knowledge the player has no in-game way of obtaining, robs the player of discovery, also makes all the work I invested in spreading vague hints into an idiot's job).Otoh it will help a bit with debugging :)

How many times have you tried middle-clicking on any of those tables? ;)

A player who didn't read this thread, will never find it :)Keeping it out of user options even increases the chance that an average player won't even know it exists. I can add the option tho, if there's interest for it.

PS: I agree that it takes away the discovery part... however with the same breath I have to add, that it is not humanly possible to discover 60% (or probably even more) of the piratez tech tree... you just have NO CHANCE of discovering the pre-requisites for any non-trivial topic... let's say Advanced Chemistry... you would have to play dozens of times to discover maybe 2 or 3 from the pre-requisites (out of total of 7 or 8 I think), optimistically speaking.

It is possible with enough time and/or replays... that was the intention. It will also be easier as alternate paths to crucial techs will be added in the future. Although it'd make a poor game for a blind let's play, so I see how this feature is important to you ;) (and like I said, useful for debugging as well!)

I would leave it unmentioned at least until such a time as the tech tree is "done". After that i would(if possible) integrate into debug mode. Most folk don't know/realize how many options there are without specific guidance.

Speaking of consistency... how about the mechanic change we once discussed? Replace the shift-move 'cheat' with a general mechanics that always disables stopping on contacts when running? This would definitely make for more funny deaths due to unexpected enemies, and force scouts to proceed carefully, which is more realistic than scouting-by-running...

Speaking of consistency... how about the mechanic change we once discussed? Replace the shift-move 'cheat' with a general mechanics that always disables stopping on contacts when running? This would definitely make for more funny deaths due to unexpected enemies, and force scouts to proceed carefully, which is more realistic than scouting-by-running...

Edit 2: I have added a .rul file for the Diaries strings (in proper Piratez parlance ( ie Brainers for Scientists, etc)) at this post in the PirateZ Commendations thread: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=4734.msg66876#msg66876 . I'd imagine that Dioxine will pull these into the main Piratez.lang file at some point. Maybe on his next update.

Just took out the 3.0 .exe for a test drive. :)I got the bad colors at the end of missions awards screen (from commendations mod) as well as all the Soldier Stats screens.Also, looks like we are missing a bunch of the soldier stats language strings.

What am I doing wrong?

When upgrading to 3.0 for the first time, you need to upgrade the ruleset and resources too, not just the EXE.

The full archive (2016-07-05-OpenXcomExPlus30-full.zip) is also in the first post... download it and replace the whole "common" and "standard" subfolders with the content from this archive.

Thanks! I must have missed those instructions somewhere. I'll try it the recommended way!

Besides that, I got the same error right now too... so there are probably still some glitches to expect... I remember SupSuper and Shoes were fixing that several times... let's wait until we're in synch with master.

I'll try to do a new release over the weekend. Theme will be magical girls (read: new fun weapons) so Meridian won't get bored by his Plasma Rifles ;) Ofc the focus is on bugfixes mainly.

Also pls, try to find any critical bugs in 3.0 before I make that release, guys :)

I played about 2 hours in total (I know, not much), but I couldn't find any more criticals.

New version is out, changelog:v2016-07-06 + Ufopedia.org about a medal in a soldier's diary can now be accessed directly (just click on a medal name) + Ufopedia.org about weapon in hand is now accessible via middle-click, same as in the inventory (not right-click) + Soldiers ignore enemies when running (i.e. they don't stop on mutual surprise), when walking this can also be activated by holding SHIFT

Download in the first post. EXE only this time... so don't forget the data files from full package when creating a new release :)

PS: I will be mostly offline from Thursday to Monday.

EDIT: the ignoring of spotted enemies doesn't work very well on 3.0 :( I tested it only on 2.9... I will have a look, see if I can find a quick fix today

I'm not certain it's a good idea to make running always ignore enemies. It probably will make people walk more when scouting; but it might also cause players to do a lot of micro-managed two-step runs (or even 1-step runs with right-click cancelling). The change wouldn't prevent people from scouting with run, it would just make it tedious and annoying to scout with run. And so if scouting with run is something the player really wants to do, then the change will have had a negative effect on the game.

Nothing can save players from excessive micromanaging, and Piratez is sure a micromanager's hell in general (still easy-peasy compared to, say, Aurora). I didn't want the 'ignore enemies' option in the first place, but once it's in, let's make it a part of the game, instead of being a 'cheat'... It sure makes the game less annoying, especially if you charge a lot. It does remove the unpredictability of a charge, that's the loss I'm willing to accept.Also using 2-tile-run won't save you if you fail the reactions check anyway. It will cause some hilarious deaths though, and will hammer the message in, that can later save your own life (don't run when there's snipers around) ;)Idk, maybe it's a wrong idea, nothing's perfect... If there's a general disapproval, I might change my mind.

PS.There's a little bug that bothers me, and the post in the other thread (about the Fireball launcher) reminded me of it. It is possible to exceed the max range of a weapon by force-firing in a certain way, since the projectile isn't removed at max range; the engine only disallows you targetting outside of the max range. Would it be possible for the engine to remove the projectile, say, 1 tile past the max range (that 1 extra tile is for sanity reasons...)?

Fair enough about the running stuff. I don't have a strong opinion about it; but I do think there will be people out there who won't like the change. I guess feel and flavour must sometimes be preferenced over convenience.

PS.There's a little bug that bothers me, and the post in the other thread (about the Fireball launcher) reminded me of it. It is possible to exceed the max range of a weapon by force-firing in a certain way, since the projectile isn't removed at max range; the engine only disallows you targetting outside of the max range. Would it be possible for the engine to remove the projectile, say, 1 tile past the max range (that 1 extra tile is for sanity reasons...)?

I haven't looked into this specifically, but I do remember seeing that projectiles already have maximum flying distances. So I'm sure what you are asking for could be done without a lot of trouble. At a guess, the only complication might be a mismatch between how targeting distance is measured and how actual flight distance is measured. (For example, is maximum targeting range measured in 2D, or 3D?

Besides that, I got the same error right now too... so there are probably still some glitches to expect... I remember SupSuper and Shoes were fixing that several times... let's wait until we're in synch with master.

Just chiming in here to confirm that with the latest .exe, I got weird colors on the post mission briefing screen, but the Diaries pages were fine. And yeah, I saw the bug fix mentions by SupSuper in the Commendations thread too, but I don't know what PR fixed them. I can look if you like, or we can see if Yankes 3.1 when you pull it in fixes it.

3.1 will be on the same version of nightly. Right now bug is only in post mission briefing? If its bug in code I could try find commit that fix it.

I looked through the Stats Tracking Thread to see where SupSuper said it was fixed. His post is from Dec 3, 2015 says he'll look into it. https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,1718.msg55481.html#msg55481 .

He didn't chime back into that thread anywhere afterward to say it was fixed or not. I tried browsing his commits in the month of December but couldn't find anything that looked like it fixed that issue.

My best guess is that it may be something in the \standard\xcom1\Interfaces.rul file that doesn't set a palette correctly.

Edit:Look at this commit: https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/commit/4a6b67655dbdfa4228d388e4d867d3b20bbaac8dthis may have something to do with it.

Edit:Look at this commit: https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/commit/4a6b67655dbdfa4228d388e4d867d3b20bbaac8dthis may have something to do with it.

If it happens randomly you could be right. The main reason for that commit (at least the ruleset part) was that "elements" was defined twice for the "-type: commendations" causing the garbled screen error at random occasions.It happens randomly since yaml isn't forced (if that is even possible) to read those nodes in a specific order.

First, cmake fails because it can't find src/Mod/ModScript.cpp - which makes sense, because it's not on github (https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/blob/oxce3.0-plus-proto/src/Mod/ModScript.cpp). So I removed the reference from src/CMakeLists.txt (line 507) and tried again. It builds for a while, but chokes at the end. I get 134k of errors starting with:

`ModScript.cpp` is bug, only `ModScript.h` exists.And for another bug, could you post more? This line don't say any thing useful, only that something happens in that function.What error exactly is there?

Hi, sorry for not giving more details. Basically, I run the exe, the game seems to start, but a drop to desktop occurs, displaying the message I put into the picture. It may be due to some of the mods, I have installed, but that none of them had bugs in version 2.9. All other versions, the 3.0, the 3.1, have also given me the same problem. Other times, it happens during the game, to change the month, or in combat, barely two shifts, or when shooting at an enemy, and kill him. CTD also occurs during customizadas battles. In addition, the exe, remains as frozen, showing an error message saying that stopped working.

A plea to fix an age-old deficiency... Could the Pedia read accuracyMelee and melee TU Cost from Battletype: 3 items (melee weapon) and display them, like it displays accuracies and and TU costs for ranged weapons? It would save a lot of writing for modders and a lot of reading small letters for the players... :)

@Dioxine: I have on my todo list the same for medikits and psiamps... probably came from you, but I can't find it anymore...

1/ can you check the medikits in attachment, if it's OK like that?2/ do you want it for psiamps too? if yes, do you have also some psiamp-like weapon that has also "Use" besides "Panic" and "Mindcontrol"?

v2016-07-20 + Upgraded to OXCE 3.2 + Added fix for missing bows under certain angles, more info here: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4726.msg66754.html#msg66754 + Can't sell prisoners in the Debriefing/Loot/Sell window anymore... only later from the Prison + CTRL+cancel in "UFO Detected" window will put this UFO on ignore list (=will not be re-detected again, resp. will not pop up again) + CTRL+sort in "Equip Crew" and "Soldiers" windows will only show the stat in a dynamic column, without actually sorting the soldiers + Physical training stat caps and training speed now moddable, more info: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4581.msg67433.html#msg67433 + Improved quick search in Inventory (by Stian), now it looks into categories and ammo too, more info: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4520.msg67432.html#msg67432

Please help testing the bows... so that we can ask DEVs to fix it in master too.

+ Can't sell prisoners in the Debriefing/Loot/Sell window anymore... only later from the Prison

^^Any chance you can make this an option that could be turned on or off? Its added back a small bit of micro: enter the base screen, enter the prison, deal with prisoners, that I've been quite happily skipping for quite a while now. It really shines once you have exhausted prisoner research. It made chasing down and soloing civilian ships with plate armor, just that bit less onerous. :) "Sell everything, done"

The reason I did this was that when your prison is constantly full (like mine is), you will always get that warning "Not enough free capacity in the prison"... even if you already sold them in the Sell window just a second ago.

The check if the message should come or not is done before the selling... and it is not trivial to move it (although it may look like the easiest of things).

I don't like the idea of having this as option... I will try to think harder how can I allow selling and get rid of that stupid message at the same time... hopefully with next version it will be back, because your use case does make perfect sense.

Yeah, I agree that it's annoying if you are being asked for selling something that was already sold... But then again, it's up to you as a player to deal with this. Prisons are cheap, so it's not terribly hard to have two at least. But if it's about UI, then the player can hardly do something about it.Still, I agree with you Meridian that being asked about someone you no longer have is pretty bad. Actually I think it deserves to be called a bug, and not really acceptable. So... well, it would be great if you could do something about it.

Well, from my point of view, removing the prisoners from the sell window isn't a good idea - sometimes I sell them from this window, sometimes I'd rather wait for the 'prison is full' message, sometimes I enter the prison and sell them manually. This 'upgrade' removes one of these three options, which is bad. The best would be disabling the 'prison is full' window if you sell enough hostages (stuff is moved to temp 'storage' -> loot sell window -> only then check base capacities). But if it's not possible, I'd rather have stingy players who constantly run at near-100% prison capacity annoyed, than the rest of us bereft of an useful option. Moreover, it makes tracking prison overcrowding much harder to keep, as instead of naturally selling off needless captives immediately, you have to enter the prison manually and check all the stuff by yourself (I'm talking as a player who always aims to have at least 6-7 free space in prison). So players who try to keep prisons half-empty are effectively penalized for their foresight and planning.Besides, removing prisoners from the initial sell list is very misleading IMO - the player might get confused whom, if any, did he catch.

PSMy designing aim has always been to make building additional prisons a viable option (unlike the OG, where the alien containment you were starting with was enough for the whole game). Annoyed by the constant lack of prison space, build one or two more.

Yeah, I agree that it's annoying if you are being asked for selling something that was already sold... But then again, it's up to you as a player to deal with this. Prisons are cheap, so it's not terribly hard to have two at least. But if it's about UI, then the player can hardly do something about it.Still, I agree with you Meridian that being asked about someone you no longer have is pretty bad. Actually I think it deserves to be called a bug, and not really acceptable. So... well, it would be great if you could do something about it.

Prisons are cheap, but building space is very limited.I really have no more space in my main base to afford another prison.Two hangars, 3 barracks, one scientific building each + 5 extra study rooms, radar, prison and two big stores.Unless I resort to slavery -- and I swear by Cthulhu I never will -- I have no more options.

Well, from my point of view, removing the prisoners from the sell window isn't a good idea - sometimes I sell them from this window, sometimes I'd rather wait for the 'prison is full' message, sometimes I enter the prison and sell them manually. This 'upgrade' removes one of these three options, which is bad. The best would be disabling the 'prison is full' window if you sell enough hostages (stuff is moved to temp 'storage' -> loot sell window -> only then check base capacities). But if it's not possible, I'd rather have stingy players who constantly run at near-100% prison capacity annoyed, than the rest of us bereft of an useful option. Moreover, it makes tracking prison overcrowding much harder to keep, as instead of naturally selling off needless captives immediately, you have to enter the prison manually and check all the stuff by yourself (I'm talking as a player who always aims to have at least 6-7 free space in prison). So players who try to keep prisons half-empty are effectively penalized for their foresight and planning.Besides, removing prisoners from the initial sell list is very misleading IMO - the player might get confused whom, if any, did he catch.

Yes, I will fix it somehow.Btw. you can still see who has been captured in the Loot window.

Prisons are cheap, but building space is very limited.I really have no more space in my main base to afford another prison.Two hangars, 3 barracks, one scientific building each + 5 extra study rooms, radar, prison and two big stores.Unless I resort to slavery -- and I swear by Cthulhu I never will -- I have no more options.

You can move a lot of your manufacturing and scientific capacity to other bases, and keep a tighter hoarding policy. Slavery is an easy way out for hoarders, but not the only way out. You WILL face choices in 'what to build'. Or, even more 'radical' solution, make an interception/loot base with nothing but crew quarters, hangars and stores.

You can move a lot of your manufacturing and scientific capacity to other bases, and keep a tighter hoarding policy. Slavery is an easy way out for hoarders, but not the only way out. You WILL face choices in 'what to build'. Or, even more 'radical' solution, make an interception/loot base with nothing but crew quarters, hangars and stores.

Yeah, I find this is the most effective way to campaign in Piratez too. I do employ slavery, (love the option, actually), but understand that it is perfectly viable to avoid this. The key problem is that one single base is never really enough to effectively "do it all."

Your starter base is your HQ, and should be. Your best research facility is here, you can intercept from here, and can build up some manufacturing capability here.

My next bases are planned with global coverage in mind, and the first is placed to allow the airbus some more visibility in its limited range, before the Pachyderm allows me to place according to global activity as visible in the charts.

I tend to make that first base my recon base as well, building out hangars for Pigeons & Zepps for better coverage. I also build a second prison (for holding interesting captives I want to research/break later), and enough stores to hold my good back load of loot. I'll say this here too: I never use the large facilities (stores or barracks). The future single tile versions are far more efficient, and I'll just upgrade my normal vaults to armored vaults, and regular barracks to luxury barracks when the opportunity presents itself.

After my Stores/Recon base, I start working on building my first Manufacturing base. This gets more workshops and barracks as I have resources, and is mainly for financial support. Works on X-Grog, then Lingerie until I can get a Mint up, then counterfeiting becomes a full time operation here. It has the capacity to grind through ore hauls and loads of apples for faster cash if the materials are available, and also provides greater manufacturing that the HQ (which basically processes loot and makes battlefield equipment like weapons, ammo and armor) to do some special runs of equipment production. This is also a good place to build craft (so it needs a hangar too).

About the same time I get a grog line up in the Manufacturing base, I start my Lab base. This can start with just a library and a single brainer. I put in a prison or two and it becomes my main interrogation base. There is some micro to move prisoners from the intercept base, but that base has higher brainer capacity and can work on figuring out all the stuff we've captured. I build this base up as resources allow, with Study Rooms being a key tech to allow me to start plopping down facilities for 2 brainers at a time. I like early combinations of 4 brainers assigned to research projects as it feels pretty efficient. Later techs become more demanding and I assign 10 or more at time for more difficult techs. Eventually this base can outstrip the HQ in research capacity (as in my current campaign, 1.3 years in, I have 20 in my Lab base, and 17 at the HQ).

I've also taken to dedicating a base to crew training as Meridian has done in his series. This is a great second intercept base for keeping the Pachyderm around once you get the Bonny up, if you so desire. I feel like 20-40 hands here is a good reserve, and start building out this capacity when Dojos and Voodoo schools start becoming available. I'll rotate wounded troops out to here when they have long recovery times, and otherwise use this to screen Voodoo, and train rookies into Vets.

All of this is solid infrastructure for the mid-game, but for the end-game, One more base needs to be set up: The Industrial Base designed to handle construction of the Conqueror. This is will become a huge cash cow when Defense Contracting becomes a thing, and we'll just churn out Battle Tanks and fuel cells while waiting to get all the keys necessary.

Because of the huge Plastasteel and Hellerium requirements of some of these end game items, converting one or two of the last recon bases into huge storage networks has a certain amount of appeal. I've not played the endgame, so I don't know how often these might be lost in Crackdowns, and how crippling their losses might be. The cost-benefit of multiple shrouds becomes an interesting question in these instances.

Edit: Blarg. Just realized I was thinking I was writing this in the main PirateZ thread. It kinda feels off topic here. Sorry bout that.

You can easily defend storage bases with an outfit of 25 hands and a host of tanks/auxiliaries (you need a lot of troops to contain enemies on all 3 main levels), provided you have the guns, the patience and 1 space for barracks :) 2 Shrouds are easier to manage but not 100% proof (although crackdown interceptions plus 2-3 good defensive buildings allow to achieve near-100% safety).

Base loses are sorta inevitable on bases that can't prevent the landing with defense fire. There are a few spawns of stargods ,ie all true stargods, that are impossible to stop because of invisible+ multiple floors. On the other hand past a certain point everything is expendable so long as you are willing to pay the time.

Hello:A few days ago, I raised a question, because my mods, did not work with version 3.2 exe Meridian. Whether it is solved. It was my fault, of the silliest, ;D when trying to start the exe, no more. I turned off all the mods, and I returned to turn them one by one, -are near nine hundred- and it works. Thank you very much, everyone, for your patience.

I would appreciate some help with debugging... Here's a link to my latest (unofficial) build:https://www.mediafire.com/download/50ej5hnkqk3u55i/OpenXcom_XPiratez_0_99A.rarThere are 2 saves in there. Both crash upon ending the mission. I suspect there is something wrong with my Commendations. I can provide additional details if needed, but ATM I'm at loss.

I would appreciate some help with debugging... Here's a link to my latest (unofficial) build:https://www.mediafire.com/download/50ej5hnkqk3u55i/OpenXcom_XPiratez_0_99A.rarThere are 2 saves in there. Both crash upon ending the mission. I suspect there is something wrong with my Commendations. I can provide additional details if needed, but ATM I'm at loss.

BTW. where to get OXCom debugging tools from?

Which version of Commendations are you running? I don't see it in the /mods/ folder in the archive.

Edit: Also, please don't issue the old version of Alternate Corpses with the archive when you distribute it. :)

I've probably got more experience troubleshooting commendations rulesets than anyone but Shoes. I'll try digging these out.... and probably stop the work I was going to do to creating more graphics. (btw, the new 'pedia screens are great!)

Edit: Also, please don't issue the old version of Alternate Corpses with the archive when you distribute it. :)

It's an unofficial build, I will upgrade just prior to shipping an official one to have the latest alt corpses possible :)Also, commendations are in 2 parts: declarations and pedia in piratez.rul, and the criteria in piratez_planet.rul. The selection is maybe slim atm, but I wanted to test a minimum build first.

@Meridian: since the physical training doesn't work if a soldier is wounded (afaik), how about a function which automatically takes any wounded soldiers off training after a mission ends? I see no need to agonize on it manually.

I would appreciate some help with debugging... Here's a link to my latest (unofficial) build:https://www.mediafire.com/download/50ej5hnkqk3u55i/OpenXcom_XPiratez_0_99A.rarThere are 2 saves in there. Both crash upon ending the mission. I suspect there is something wrong with my Commendations. I can provide additional details if needed, but ATM I'm at loss.

@Meridian: since the physical training doesn't work if a soldier is wounded (afaik), how about a function which automatically takes any wounded soldiers off training after a mission ends? I see no need to agonize on it manually.

I don't have a problem with that, I have enough training space :)I can do this, but only as a user option (default off)... for me it would be very inconvenient, because I would have to remember to manually put them back on training after they recover... which is much harder to track.

But if you (or anyone else) have some more ideas how to optimize the process (other than increasing the dojo capacity), I will gladly implement it.

I don't really mind the idea of setting up a training base. It works well, and is not too difficult. The semi-regular maintenance of the training roster is not a massive chore either. About once a month, I rebalance the training assignments, bringing up gals who have less than others. The trait I use as a lazy Guiderule is TUs, as I want everyone to have 100 eventually.

Train the Rookies. - The routine would find the least experienced soldiers and focus on leveling them up. Maybe the routine runs at end of month with the other maintenance there (or maybe at every Geoscape auto save which is every ten days for me). At "evaluation time" it would check soldier training again, maybe using a total of all training points and start from the bottom and fill up the training roster again. Maybe this should be the default option.Train a Cadre. - In this instance, you would want to train a group of gals up to the highest level. I'm not sure on how to single say, 20 gals out of 40 for this treatment. Maybe train cadre opens another UI that allows you to "select" which gals are part of the cadre, similar to the one used to assign them to a vessel, or even the armor assignment list. Otherwise this would be similar to train the rookies. If you had 20 gals assign to the cadre but only 10 training space, it would level out the progress by ensuring that the least trained ones would always be catching up to their peers. A simple approach would be to only select enough cadre for your current training capacity.Sick Leave. The routine would identify a wounded soldier and check to see if they were in training. If so, it would assign them to "sick leave" ( add a marker in the save game) and then select a different soldier from the pool according to the setting (rookie/cadre/etc) and assign them to training. Once the convalescence period is over, at the next evaluation period it would release the substitute student and put the recovered soldier back in.

I suppose that with Smart Training facilities like this (Maybe they are an upgrade?) you could forgo the "Training Base" and just include a facility or two in your operational bases, but that may vary with play style.

I don't have a problem with that, I have enough training space :)I can do this, but only as a user option (default off)... for me it would be very inconvenient, because I would have to remember to manually put them back on training after they recover... which is much harder to track.

Haha, I knew you'd say that. Usually you have no such luxury as Dojos being added when you're already swimming in cash :) But sure, it should be an option, since you'd want it on early game, but off later, when you don't care about wasted time.

As bonus there is a "Piratez Employment" mod:- many low-level traders, mutants and humans can now be turned into employees, which give +10 storage space, but cost $5'000 per month- prerequisites: Slavery, Academy, Trader's Guild, The Church, Human Citizens, Raiders- download: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4774.0.html

Meridian, I have a problem with my X-Com Files mod: if I add battleType: 9 (like the Psi-Amp) to the alien deployment, it is ignored by the game and doesn't appear.Is there a legitimate reason for this? If no, can it be changed? (I have an item that is a variant of the Psi-Amp and I need some enemies to carry it, even if they can't use it.)

PS. I can't see the search bar. STR_SHOW_QUICK_SEARCH is enabled. What am I doing wrong?

Meridian, I have a problem with my X-Com Files mod: if I add battleType: 9 (like the Psi-Amp) to the alien deployment, it is ignored by the game and doesn't appear.Is there a legitimate reason for this? If no, can it be changed? (I have an item that is a variant of the Psi-Amp and I need some enemies to carry it, even if they can't use it.)

I am not around my PC these days, I'll have a look today in the evening (maybe), or on Thursday.

Meridian, since you already worked on the training stuff, would there be a possibility to make the training cap relative to the soldier's starting stats?

I'm thinking of this especially for Psi training. I usually use it, since I hate sorting through piles of soldiers and firing the ones with low psi and/or low reactions. Training facilities help that, but then, especially with Psi on long campaigns like Piratez, you end up with everyone at the cap, which isn't really proper either.

Yes, I am particularly interested in it for psi, as I mentioned. Either you just go through a mindless sorting step (and frustrating firing of half your early crew) or you train and with the time allowed, end up with everyone at maxed voodoo..

I guess setting a training cap for psi strength lower than the max stat would do the trick, actually.. I'll have to look if that's possible with psi training. Then I can set that to.. 45? Recover my psi weaklings after a few months training and get rid of screening..

Oh, so you mean playing with psi strength training on? Idk, I don't particularly like that setting and never use it, since I feel the variety is lost that way (I don't sack the old crew, I might only move them to secondary posts - also, the original 6 pirates are guaranteed to have at least 40 Psi Str now). But yeah, the ability to set training cap on psi str would be consistent with the rest.

Yes, as I said, I like that option and enabled it in this playthrough as I do usually in normal XCom. Since in vanilla you can start stupid low, it goes all the way to 100 and a campaign is generally less than a year, I've never had balance issues with it. My psi-weak soldiers never really catch up with the good ones, at the very least not to the point where they become worthy psi-users themselves.

In Piratez, I've had voodoo schools for more than a year, so the training has added up, to the point where my weakest psi-soldiers are now at the cap like everyone else. I don't encounter psi enemies much (just got my 2nd esper so I can break one in late 2602, haven't seen a provost yet) and can't use it much (no witch outfit :/) so I never noticed, then yesterday when sorting troops to take on the academy pogrom, I realized this had gotten all screwy. Gotta edit my save to bring the psi power training down a notch.

Thinking back, a relative cap isn't necessary, although it could be interesting (defined as a %? like str: 1.5 means you can add 50% to your starting strength, then rest you need to train in the field for). But for psi, the ability to define a cap is all that's really "needed" for me. Something like 40 str, 10 skill, and the rest needs to be trained in the field. This gives a further reason to have wands and odd voodoo outfits, which I have overlooked until now.

Wands are actually quite good since the recent buff; ranged high probability/guaranteed hit stun, armour ignoring bleed inducing damage (disabled and captured a heavily armoured Guildmaster in this way) and fire spam are all solid (I've only had experience with the first tier).

Would like to see more of them though (say healing, smoke generation, breaching, explosive, maybe even short range teleportation? wands) , and apparently they're coming.

Meridian, I have a problem with my X-Com Files mod: if I add battleType: 9 (like the Psi-Amp) to the alien deployment, it is ignored by the game and doesn't appear.Is there a legitimate reason for this? If no, can it be changed? (I have an item that is a variant of the Psi-Amp and I need some enemies to carry it, even if they can't use it.)

If I read the code correctly, hostiles can carry battleType=9 items only in their hands (and if both are already full, it's just ignored): https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/blob/oxce3.0-plus-proto/src/Savegame/SavedBattleGame.cpp#L1300

This behavior was added by Yankes on December 6th 2014: https://github.com/Yankes/OpenXcom/commit/2df6b7cc454583444d058c465634785a246e7683

So Solar has his own wish list. When I thought of something today I wondered if you had looked into it, so I thought I'd ask here.

I had a crackdown earlier, and had many defenses fire and hit the Cruiser that was assaulting. Of course they weren't enough, so straight into the hideout defense battle. I chose not to fight this with three gals there and reloaded to prep for it.

But what I got to thinking was, "Has Meridian taken a look at the ability to apply damages on an assaulting craft to minimize the number of assaulters?"

I remember that there have been discussions with the devs on this, and my take away was that it seemingly was too hard to do. This may be the case, I'm not sure.

I'd like to ask how "damaged UFOs" spawn dead enemy units, and wonder if this same process could be applied to the assaulting party.

One thought is reduce it by the same percentage of damage inflicted on it.

Anyway, thought I'd ask if you have looked at it. Sorry if you did and I don't remember. Feel free to tell me that its just too hard to do. :) Thanks for all the amazing improvements you have made for this game on top of being such an entertaining video producer and excellent player!

When I thought of something today I wondered if you had looked into it, so I thought I'd ask here.

I had a crackdown earlier, and had many defenses fire and hit the Cruiser that was assaulting. Of course they weren't enough, so straight into the hideout defense battle. I chose not to fight this with three gals there and reloaded to prep for it.

But what I got to thinking was, "Has Meridian taken a look at the ability to apply damages on an assaulting craft to minimize the number of assaulters?"

No, Meridian doesn't implement features that are a disadvantage to the poor aliens... unless specifically asked for.

I remember that there have been discussions with the devs on this, and my take away was that it seemingly was too hard to do. This may be the case, I'm not sure.

I'd like to ask how "damaged UFOs" spawn dead enemy units, and wonder if this same process could be applied to the assaulting party.

That's pretty easy. All enemy units are first spawned alive (remember, game would crash, if you just spawned a corpse). When a UFO crashes, there is a 75% chance for each power source to explode violently. These explosions are the cause of all pre-battle deaths.

Yes, I fully agree with Meridian: crew losses on assault would not only depower the enemy, but would do so in a bad way. In early game you have very little AA power, so there wouldn't be much losses; on the other hand, later in the game, hideout defences would become easier, because even if you don't destroy the UFO, you reduce its crew. I don't think it's good difficulty curve.

Difficulty curvatures aside don't mess with the one the best battles in the game. Base defense is one of the few times the tactical aspect feels like more like a battle and not a multiple hour chess match with a retard. Good play is still rewarding but the AI dosen't lose 50% of its forces without contest. Also pressure is on not to fuck up so you feel each mistake more.

But what I got to thinking was, "Has Meridian taken a look at the ability to apply damages on an assaulting craft to minimize the number of assaulters?"

I remember that there have been discussions with the devs on this, and my take away was that it seemingly was too hard to do. This may be the case, I'm not sure.

This wouldn't be very realistic. Either the landing craft survives the barrage and lands with little losses (accounted for by the RNG unless you play Jack Sparrow which isn't a very fair diff level), or it does crash and cannot complete the mission.I went through major pains to make this whole affair more fun for the player, hence multiple types of attacking craft (so light defences can stop some of them), various small bonuses for building defences etc. Not saying it's a reason to stop innovation, but I don't like this particular solution. To make defences matter more, I'd rather see them capable of engaging enemy crafts mid-air, instead of serving as point-defence only.

Difficulty curvatures aside don't mess with the one the best battles in the game. Base defense is one of the few times the tactical aspect feels like more like a battle and not a multiple hour chess match with a retard. Good play is still rewarding but the AI dosen't lose 50% of its forces without contest. Also pressure is on not to fuck up so you feel each mistake more.

Really?

Between a flame pit choke and hyperwave facing said choke (prevents them from routing through the ventilation system and gives you a door to peekaboo a rotation of snipers/bombardiers out from at the main level), plus small launchers + mininukes/fireball launchers/misc aoe weapon + landmines + smoke + any high powered sniping weapon with an accurate aimed shot, I never found it to be a real source of casualties when prepared with proper armaments.

I normally have my dudes destroy all the access lift doors in their LoF so they can shoot AoEs past that into the Hangar while behind an oppressive death curtain of mines, fire, smoke and reaction fire.

Invading the hangar when the dust has settled is probably the most dangerous thing, but as long as you don't overextend, all is well. The worst parts are when you're forced to rely on reaction fire during the approach, because even after you've laid waste and made a friend of horror and mortal terror (https://youtu.be/o6tV1yfEPTk?t=60), sometimes the RNG just doesn't work out and they conquer their fear to come at you bro.

EDIT: or I can make it a user option... I guess people (incl. me) will get sick of manual assignment eventually

I'm already sick of it :) No, it's a good option, but auto-filling was much quicker. And allowed to use sorting tools on the crew list. Anyway... for the players, it's mostly a story for the next mod update :)

A quick request: When sorting, it sorts with the highest stat at the bottom. That works well if you want rookies out first and vets out last, but in Piratez I like to have high reactions out first (the reaction balance in Piratez favors the gals and you can actually step out without getting reaction shots with good gals).

So I was wondering if it would be possible implement something like:Select a sorting for the first time -> sort with highest stat at the bottomSelect the same sorting again -> sort with highest stat up topSelect the same sorting a 3rd time -> flip again, etcSelect another sorting for the first time -> sort with highest stat at the bottomSelect that one again -> flp, etc

So, pardon my ignorance Meridian, but for downloading these additions do I just go to the source code and download it from there (and hopefully follow some instructions on how to integrate it into my game) or am I missing something?

A quick request: When sorting, it sorts with the highest stat at the bottom. That works well if you want rookies out first and vets out last, but in Piratez I like to have high reactions out first (the reaction balance in Piratez favors the gals and you can actually step out without getting reaction shots with good gals).

How about:1. click = sort ASC2. shift+click = sort DESC3. ctrl+click = don't sort, just show the stats... I use this one a lot lately

So, pardon my ignorance Meridian, but for downloading these additions do I just go to the source code and download it from there (and hopefully follow some instructions on how to integrate it into my game) or am I missing something?

No pardon needed, I'm always happy when someone new shows interest.

Can I ask two questions first, so that I don't have to write a really long answer?

1. are you using windows or linux? or something else?

2. what do you want to play with OXCE+?a/ x-piratezb/ x-com filesc/ vanilla xcom (with a few small mods)d/ vanilla tftde/ a bigger vanilla-based mod (e.g. Hardmode, Area 51, XOps's mod, robin's mod, ...)

I guess this could be a good time to ask how well OXCE+ is with the base games, and any requirements for that.

Although I have never played UFO/TFTD with OXCE+ I can say it should be 99.9% compatible.

The only issues you should encounter are:- missing translations (both UFO and TFTD), you can add them manually, I posted most of them on the forum- weird colors sometimes, since the early changes have them hardcoded (in TFTD only)I'll fix both eventually.- TFTD ufopedia articles are probably missing new stuff (since they are not shared with UFO)

Yes; this thread is for the version of the OXC executable that Meridian writes with the intention of these features being used by Dioxine in X-Piratez. It can be used for other mod's or a vanilla game, but most of the new features are implemented for X-Piratez. The X-Com Files also uses this code too, so you'll find Solarius Scorch often weighing in here too.

I used it once when it was new, then didn't need it either.. normally I execute things by autoshoting at the tile where their body lays, that feature of oxc is quite nice. Maybe since melee might be able to destroy terrain, it could also work on corpses? (If there's no walls or object, target corpse)

The TU cost associated with picking up, executing and dropping is just too high compared to the shooting option. (Snapshot from a power mace or hammer also works really well, hence my asking if melee could also do it this way with the new terrain damage implementation)

I've never seen the usefulness of this option, beside sheer sadism (unconscious enemies are a boon, not a problem), but I guess it makes sense that such an option exists, also, whatever floats Meridian's boat - without him, there would be no Piratez as we know them now :)

I've never seen the usefulness of this option, beside sheer sadism (unconscious enemies are a boon, not a problem), but I guess it makes sense that such an option exists, also, whatever floats Meridian's boat - without him, there would be no Piratez as we know them now :)

In my defense it was an Artifact Site with 10 unconscious tentaculats ;D

You mean like having a "Bonny-Raiding" and a "Bonny-Mansion" equipment list, so you can easily swap between your normal equipment and what you take to mansions? It never occurred to me that I needed it, but now that I know it could exist, I'd use that! ;)

Not sure it was a good idea... the weird behaviour reported was much, much rarer and not even 10% as annoying due to being obvious, not hidden like the bow bug is.Should I wait till it's fixed? Or release the game with re-crappified bows?

The problem is, it might have side effects we don't know about.I tried debugging it, but it will take some time until I understand all different scenarios... and even more to test them.Unless karadoc fixes it soon, I'd recommend releasing the version with re-crappified bows.

With option ON... it is the original behavior by Stoddard (global night vision across the map),with option OFF... the night vision is only applied around your units... if something is not in their night vision range, it will remain dark.

I left the option for people to play with initially... but I will most likely remove the option and leave the OFF option only... to me it seems a lot better and more intuitive.

With option ON... it is the original behavior by Stoddard (global night vision across the map),with option OFF... the night vision is only applied around your units... if something is not in their night vision range, it will remain dark.

I left the option for people to play with initially... but I will most likely remove the option and leave the OFF option only... to me it seems a lot better and more intuitive.

I have a small request concerning getting experience when using shotguns. I just played a mission where my two shotgun gals got no experience at all, despite killing lots of stuff. One had three kills and the other had two. There was probably some bad luck involved, but 5 kills with no experience is just not right.

Could there be a mechanism that counts kills as battle participation so the gals can at least get secondary stat increases? This would also reward indirect kills by shooting exploding barrels, which I think don't give experience right now. Stangely, the diary counted one of the shotgun kills as indirect, but there was no exploding stuff involved.

I have a small request concerning getting experience when using shotguns. I just played a mission where my two shotgun gals got no experience at all, despite killing lots of stuff. One had three kills and the other had two. There was probably some bad luck involved, but 5 kills with no experience is just not right.

Could there be a mechanism that counts kills as battle participation so the gals can at least get secondary stat increases? This would also reward indirect kills by shooting exploding barrels, which I think don't give experience right now. Stangely, the diary counted one of the shotgun kills as indirect, but there was no exploding stuff involved.

It already works like that.

If you have between 1 and 2 experience points/kills, you can get either +0 or +1 to stats.If you have between 3 and 5 experience points/kills, you can get either +1 +2 or +3 to stats.

Considering both of your gals had 2 kills (as diary says), it is pretty possible to roll 2 times +0 stats (chance of that is exactly 25%).

Is the roll to all stats at once (either you improve or you don't) or for each specific stat (maybe you improve TUs but not STR, etc.)? Because that affects the odds of "no improvement whatsoever" significantly.

I also remember something where only the first pellet of a shotgun multiple pellet shot awarded experience points, to avoid getting 7 experience points at once when hitting with all 7 pellets. If the 1st one misses, it is quite possible for the others to hit and kill their victim but award no xp. A better implementation might be to treat all pellets equally xp wise, but cap the awarded xp at 1/shot (ie track h = number of pellet hits, if h > 0, award 1 xp).

Is the roll to all stats at once (either you improve or you don't) or for each specific stat (maybe you improve TUs but not STR, etc.)? Because that affects the odds of "no improvement whatsoever" significantly.

I also remember something where only the first pellet of a shotgun multiple pellet shot awarded experience points, to avoid getting 7 experience points at once when hitting with all 7 pellets. If the 1st one misses, it is quite possible for the others to hit and kill their victim but award no xp. A better implementation might be to treat all pellets equally xp wise, but cap the awarded xp at 1/shot (ie track h = number of pellet hits, if h > 0, award 1 xp).

Each stat rolls separately.

As for pellets, maybe test it and let me know? I don't use shotguns... save would be nice as well.

If you have between 0 and 2 experience points/kills, you can get either +0 or +1 to stats.If you have between 3 and 5 experience points/kills, you can get either +1 +2 or +3 to stats.

Considering both of your gals had 2 kills (as diary says), it is pretty possible to roll 2 times +0 stats (chance of that is exactly 25%).

I have some doubts that what you are saying is correct.- One of the girls had three kills. Diary says two by shotgun, one indirect.- I have a save just before I knock the last enemy down. I reloaded it several times, to see if I had bad luck with the rolls. I see the stat increases for the other girls changing, but the shotgun girls never get anything. Save is attached so you can see yourself.

I remember Warboy saying the xp from shotgun blasts only counts if the "first" projectile hits. It might be worth investigating. Also, Commendations are obviously unable to attribute some types of kills properly (like grenade kills, for example), which might also be a factor.

I have some doubts that what you are saying is correct.- One of the girls had three kills. Diary says two by shotgun, one indirect.- I have a save just before I knock the last enemy down. I reloaded it several times, to see if I had bad luck with the rolls. I see the stat increases for the other girls changing, but the shotgun girls never get anything. Save is attached so you can see yourself.

Moonlight Saker and Living Blade got exactly zero experience from the mission (see attached)... so also all improvements were +0.

I'll have a look at the weapons they used, if there's anything wrong with them.

EDIT:- so, only the "first" bullet counts, other bullets don't give any experience- the issue is however even deeper, because the "first" bullet is actually calculated as first, but drawn and processed as last... and if the other pellets kill the target already (which is very likely is this case), the first bullet processed as last will hit an already dead target and won't give any experience either

Not sure how to fix it... I could allow experience from shotguns also when hitting already dead units... but dead units on the ground would count too... which is just not right.

2016-09-15 + Switch for endless or one-cycle infiltrations (see below) + Recovered items now shown in Debriefing also for base defense missions + Small fix for shotgun not giving any experience (still only first bullet counts, but if it hits it will give experience every time; experience != improvement) + Don't show previously unlocked (and seen!) manufacturing topics in the "We can now manufacture..." window

In case you need an idea for a shotgun fix:The clean method to do it (count all bullet hits, but give just one xp no matter the number of hits) is apparently not that easy or you would have already done it. Is a statistical solution easier? Count all pellet hits, each pellet has a chance of "1 / (number of pellets)" to give xp.

Hello, Id like to request something if possible. Can you make a numerical stat display appear in rightmost column in an Armor screen after sorting is done, just like it appears in a Crew screen?It not that big of a deal, as I can see those stats in a different screen and equip armour through inventory, but all those extra clicks add up quickly and contribute to micromanagement fatigue. And having both screens sorting function work visually same would be aesthetically nice, I think. Also, consistency between screens and sameish functions.

Hello, Id like to request something if possible. Can you make a numerical stat display appear in rightmost column in an Armor screen after sorting is done, just like it appears in a Crew screen?It not that big of a deal, as I can see those stats in a different screen and equip armour through inventory, but all those extra clicks add up quickly and contribute to micromanagement fatigue. And having both screens sorting function work visually same would be aesthetically nice, I think. Also, consistency between screens and sameish functions.

Yes, I am missing it there too.The problem is just the space on the screen, the armor names would be cut off a bit...... but I found a "text overflow" option in textbox recently... I'll have a look if that helps.

I'm already limiting armor names to circa 10 letters. Cutting this any more would be ridiculous and force modders to come up with stupider names. Maybe the screen could be completely rearranged, or something. However I'm barely using the Armor tab anymore (assigning armors in equip screen is so much more convenient).

I'm already limiting armor names to circa 10 letters. Cutting this any more would be ridiculous and force modders to come up with stupider names. Maybe the screen could be completely rearranged, or something. However I'm barely using the Armor tab anymore (assigning armors in equip screen is so much more convenient).

No worries, I won't decrease the size (I would do that long ago if I was willing to).

PS: I didn't find the taste for armor equipping in Inventory screen... it doesn't show me the position of the soldier in the craft.At the moment, Armor tab is the only way to go for me.

Yeah, while I do use the function of equipping armour through Equipment screen, I find it best suited for custom tailored loadouts. Does not really work for crews containing over 12-14 people for me. I also cannot see Stamina and TUs in there (relevant for cumbersome armours), so I have to go into another screen and then go back, and keep those numbers in my mind (in addition to a hell lot of other stuff most of the time). Generally I combine both - assign armours and positions in Armor screen, then go to equipment and apply maxxed loadouts based on a resulting paperdoll and stats, and ctrl-drop the stuff that goes over weight limit.While alternative has the sameish amount of clicks - I can plainly see the numbers at a glance (assign Heavy Suit only to gals with over 100Stamina for example), and not changing screens back and forth is easier on the eyes and as a result is a more psychologically smooth experience. Its helping with micromanagement fatigue and delaying the burnout.

A crazy request: Do you think it would be possible to make an object which has a different floorob depending on deployment? The idea would be to have a few of these on various mapblocks, to better tie the map to the enemy encountered. This is especially relevant for Solarius' XCom files, where say, giant spiders infestations could have spiderwebs everywhere, but for zombies it'd be puddles of blood and corpses. (Not real corpses! Just an item which looks like one).

It's already doable, without much extra work (on mapping, setting spawns does take time), since games' cumbersome map-mission script practically neccessitates making new terrains for every single one non-UFO-crash/landing mission (unless they're carbon-copies, with only the alien race changed); and items are spawned by terrain.

I think the 8 base maximum is plenty for this game... unless we also add special bases of some kind. eg. bases with smaller builder area than normal, or fixed features such as undiggable squares or unique buildings (like the lab, but less awesome, and in a secondary smaller bases).

Hey Meridian, I've noticed that when using the new shotgun code to fire against a wall adjacent to your soldier/gal, a pellet or two may fire 'backwards', behind you. (I don't have a save, but just try using new battle and try to breach a wall from right next to it, like in farm terrain in an enclosed space - it's likely you'll see a hit drawn on the opposite wall from which you're breaching.) I think this is due to how I wrote the finding of the first pellet's trajectory. In order to prevent getting 'no line of fire's errors when searching for trajectories for the subsequent pellets, I choose the 'target' for those pellets as the hit location of the first minus two voxels along the firing line, as I had seen in the vanilla code for drawing the hit location. However, when coupled with short ranges between the origin voxel and the pellet spread, this may end up with firing a projectile or two behind your soldier. I think the fix might be in using the code for forcing a shot with no line of fire, like ctrl+fire to shoot through an obstacle. I haven't been able to find that in the vanilla code - do you know where it is, so I could come up with a potential fix for this issue?

Never mind, I found it - the unfortunate bit is that it would either require rewriting calculateTrajectory in Projectile.cpp to accept another variable to force-fire without holding CTRL just for this condition, or making a duplicate method, either in Projectile.cpp or ProjectileFlyBState.cpp... and that feels like a very kludgy fix.

Small recap what is possible with new visibility scripts:a) Some unit can be visible only to some other units, something like A can see B, C can see D but A cant see D and C cant see B. b) Items in hands can affect visibility of units, you can add NV googles that need be held in hands to allow see in darkens or masking device that will cloaking you.c) Effectiveness of visibility is stored as integer value. Greater than zero mean that other unit is visible. This allow gun scope that add value to that number increasing effective sight radius of unit. Alternative you can subtract to recreate some camouflage. As IR visibility should not be affected by scopes or normal camouflage, I added option for distinguish between different visibility modes. Normal visibility (in visible light lengths) is defined by empty value `null` other types can be defined by new tag in `BattleUnitVisibility`.d) You have access to raw data of smoke and fire density, this allow you to change how smoke affect visibility or allow fire to prevent use of IR.e) You can add penalty for NV googles if target is in bright spot, or simply add bonus/penates based on relative lighting level of tiles where units stand (current and target) to simulate that you can't see thing in shadow.f) All units stats can contribute to visibility. You can made cloaking device that will fall or reduce it effectiveness when unit lose hp (or current TU).

What I understood is that you can now script various visibility modes, including things like the camouflage, counter-camouflage and heat vision from OXCE+... but with greater control over it (you can use more variables for calculation and even consider items in hands). You can't do psi-vision-like scripts yet. So, if you want more than what I "hardcoded" in OXCE+, this gives you the tools to do it.

Performance loss is not confirmed yet.There is inevitably some (like with every new feature), but we don't know how big it is until we try it out.

EDIT: and there is also the "mod size" feature... which gives you possibility to use IDs bigger than 1000 without conflicts... which I strongly suggest using instead of IDs > 100000 used at the moment.

EDIT2: also I think light doesn't go through solid objects (like walls) anymore... but I haven't really played yet, so that's just what I saw in some demo video

OK, so mod size (useful) and realistic lighting (confirmed, looks really cool!). As for scripting, well... I have no idea what to do with it. Learning "Yankes C" is a major commitment and I won't do that unless there is some critical gain in sight.

As for scripting, well... I have no idea what to do with it. Learning "Yankes C" is a major commitment and I won't do that unless there is some critical gain in sight.

Yeah, I also have no idea how powerful it is or how to use it...... best would be: if you have a new idea which involves visibility, first ask Yankes if it can be done by a script ... if yes, he'll help with the script itself... if not, raise a change request with me, him, or whomever is willing to listen :)

OK, so mod size (useful) and realistic lighting (confirmed, looks really cool!). As for scripting, well... I have no idea what to do with it. Learning "Yankes C" is a major commitment and I won't do that unless there is some critical gain in sight.

Yeah, I also have no idea how powerful it is or how to use it...... best would be: if you have a new idea which involves visibility, first ask Yankes if it can be done by a script ... if yes, he'll help with the script itself... if not, raise a change request with me, him, or whomever is willing to listen :)

This, I will eagerly help with firsts scripts. Example of usage that could affect gameplay without lot of changes is made that today invisible units could be see by units holding mindprobes.Dioxine what behavior would you like to have in case of visibility?

Yankes, can you use this script to make a gun with night vision? I'm thinking a hi-tech rifle with NV sights. (Redundant if you have NV armour, but otherwise could help.)

NV will work with any item that have "XPIRATEZ_NV_GOGGLES" (you can rename it to something else :)), weapons too. Right now only part about "Redundant" will be hard because Maridain mod pars are not jet exposed to script and you can't know easy if armor have NV (but you can add redundant information that script can read).

Meridian, how hard would it be to add prerequisites for getOneFree items?

Example: Red Dawn Ganger in X-Com Files currently has the following getOneFree items: STR_BASEBALL_BAT, STR_WOODEN_CLUB, STR_STAFF_001, STR_STAFF_002, STR_STAFF_007. I would like to add also STR_STAFF_009 to this list, but it would only be chosen if you have STR_CHIEF_ENGINEER_CONTACT researched, because the article is something that the Chief Engineer says and therefore he must already have been recruited before.

If you don't have the prerequisite, some other item on the list is chosen instead (one with no prerequisites or prerequisites which are already fulfilled).If there are no other viable items left, you get nothing and you shouldn't even see STR_ZSRR_GANGER on the research projects list. If you research the prerequisite later, you can research STR_ZSRR_GANGER again.

If there are no other viable items left, you get nothing and you shouldn't even see STR_ZSRR_GANGER on the research projects list. If you research the prerequisite later, you can research STR_ZSRR_GANGER again.

This is bad game design, it should not work like this.

As alternative, maybe replace the whole idea with a dedicated project for STR_STAFF_009, which unlocks when both STR_ZSSR_GANGER and STR_CHIEF_ENGINEER_CONTACT are researched?

Meridian, how hard would it be to add prerequisites for getOneFree items?

Example: Red Dawn Ganger in X-Com Files currently has the following getOneFree items: STR_BASEBALL_BAT, STR_WOODEN_CLUB, STR_STAFF_001, STR_STAFF_002, STR_STAFF_007. I would like to add also STR_STAFF_009 to this list, but it would only be chosen if you have STR_CHIEF_ENGINEER_CONTACT researched, because the article is something that the Chief Engineer says and therefore he must already have been recruited before.

If you don't have the prerequisite, some other item on the list is chosen instead (one with no prerequisites or prerequisites which are already fulfilled).

Probably not very hard. But...

1/ As I said above a topic should not disappear and then reappear, people would just keep selling STR_ZSSR_GANGER, because they know (at least to their best knowledge) it can't tell them anything new.

2/ As a modder you probably know that the whole research-related ruleset is really buggy (probably the last place in OpenXcom with serious known bugs). "Requires" doesn't work at all, "getOneFree" works only sometimes and "Dependencies" and "Unlocks" has some funny effects too. If I would touch it, I would probably rewrite it completely. And that would break all non-trivial mods, which use all sorts of workarounds and hacks to achieve desired functionality (because I would of course not support hacks and workarounds, or at least not in the same form). We are in a deadlock situation here...

As alternative, maybe replace the whole idea with a dedicated project for STR_STAFF_009, which unlocks when both STR_ZSSR_GANGER and STR_CHIEF_ENGINEER_CONTACT are researched?

Because it's an item on a long getOneFree list you get from an enemy (in this case, STR_ZSSR_GANGER). It's not supposed to be researched in any orderly way. The STR_STAFF_XXX line are worthless, (supposedly) humorous articles that make it harder to get the important stuff and to give you a reason to interrogate low-level enemies. And every STR_STAFF_XXX is a report/gossip from a member of your staff, and some members are recruited later, so I can't make STR_STAFF_XXX with these people because they could appear before you even meet them.

By the way, can you elaborate why it's bad game design? I sort of feel the same, but I can't define it properly.

1/ As I said above a topic should not disappear and then reappear, people would just keep selling STR_ZSSR_GANGER, because they know (at least to their best knowledge) it can't tell them anything new.

It shouldn't be a problem, because you can get these things from many enemies, including later ones. So it doesn't matter if you sell early game enemies, unless you research completely all the enemies in the game and then some new Ufopedia article appears. So, not an issue.

2/ As a modder you probably know that the whole research-related ruleset is really buggy (probably the last place in OpenXcom with serious known bugs). "Requires" doesn't work at all, "getOneFree" works only sometimes and "Dependencies" and "Unlocks" has some funny effects too. If I would touch it, I would probably rewrite it completely. And that would break all non-trivial mods, which use all sorts of workarounds and hacks to achieve desired functionality (because I would of course not support hacks and workarounds, or at least not in the same form). We are in a deadlock situation here...

Well, I understand... If the system can be rewritten better, then I personally think it's worth to update mods for it, but it's not a subject for now. So, if this doesn't happen, it's perfectly understendable, for many reasons. But I'm hoping for a hack here, too. :)

2016-10-22 + Added item flag, which says if the item can be equipped in base defense + TechTreeViewer now shows also the number of required items for manufacturing topics + Small fix for stun/wound indicator2016-10-06 + Upgraded to OXCE 3.3

Could we have the "disableEquip" flag activated/deactivated by game options? These all items are basically useless in battle, but were deliberately left equippable for roleplay reasons, and/or for the possibility of transporting them through craft (eg. ten thousand chips are far cheaper to transport by an actual craft than by Transfer menu). With such an option, we could have the best of both worlds.

Meridian, any progress on the "inventory template" for crafts? It would be a very convenient feature, even as just a "quick save/load" and no actual writing of the templates in the saves for the longer term.

Could we have the "disableEquip" flag activated/deactivated by game options? These all items are basically useless in battle, but were deliberately left equippable for roleplay reasons, and/or for the possibility of transporting them through craft (eg. ten thousand chips are far cheaper to transport by an actual craft than by Transfer menu). With such an option, we could have the best of both worlds.

EDIT: I'm stupid, I can simply make this into an optional mod.

I can probably also change it to apply to base defense only... I don't mind equipping that stuff on craft.

Meridian, any progress on the "inventory template" for crafts? It would be a very convenient feature, even as just a "quick save/load" and no actual writing of the templates in the saves for the longer term.

Awesome! It's not as needed for Piratez but in XCom Files with all the small teams and equipment changing all the time it'd be very convenient. Your multiple soldier inventory also was super useful for that as each small team needs one of each roles and they rotate often because of losses.

Noticed a bug when watching Poet's LP; commendations aren't unlocked in the Pedia if they were awarded posthumously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOk-MzKpD-s&index=10&list=PLnh8c5HMxAXsMHn64sjtX4Aa--tJ_iJPo, about 53:40.

Noticed a bug when watching Poet's LP; commendations aren't unlocked in the Pedia if they were awarded posthumously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOk-MzKpD-s&index=10&list=PLnh8c5HMxAXsMHn64sjtX4Aa--tJ_iJPo, about 53:40.

I have a small request: Can the magnitude of bonuses the pilots give be made changeable through the ruleset file? I'd like to lower the dodge and accuracy on my pilots a little. Like max dodge bonus right now is 27, and I want to lower it to 20 or something.

Minor request: adding a pop-up window that the enemies have surrendered would be less confusing than sudden end-mission I think.

Another one: the current activeCamouflage is less than perfect.

Namely, the negative numbers. For example, giving someone -5 gives them a huge advantage in night conditions, but negligible at day. On the other hand, positive numbers are irrelevant for night vision unless they're really low (below 20).Can we have it broken into 2 separate parameters that can work together? Eg. passiveCamouflage 35 and activeCamouflage 3 would reduce day visibility to 32, and night visibility by 3.

Maybe the camouflage should be changed to a percentage instead? So 13% camo would reduce a 40 day vision to 35 and a 16 night vision to 14. Of course there could also be seperate values for night and day, so that night ops outfit gets no day bonus.

Having percentage values would not cripple low night vision enemies as much at higher camouflage values. But it's up to you to decide against which type of enemies camouflage should be most useful.

Much appreciated. I plan to release another bugfix version after the camo is handled better. I think in simplest terms it boils down to night camo and day camo, both modifying enemy's vision range, not being set values - these aren't too good. The set value camo can stay too, for enemies which can be seen only from a very close range, like star gods.

Percentage is another idea, might be good as it doesn't need to separate night and day in the ruleset. But again it might fall on these Star Gods if it's only a single value.

Hey Meridian, I've got some tweaks for the interception window, detailed here (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,5019.msg73600.html#msg73600). I'm creating a pull request to 3.3-plus-proto on GitHub if you want to take a look at it.

Edit: Is this the way you prefer to get code suggestions, or should I do it differently? I don't have much experience contributing to a shared repository, so I don't want these things to be just an annoyance.

Hello Meridian:I do not know if this is possible, or be asking too much, to xcom. :)Would it be possible, add something, like hacking xcom 2, for a particular object, for example, a computer affects a determined enemy? It would be something like the psychic control of Xcom, restricted to a particular class of opponent.

1/ I don't have a good imagination, so I would need more description of how exactly the weapon/object should work, what enemies it can affect and how, etc. ...2/ Also, I am not the mod owner (or even a modder), so you would need to ask Dioxine to add it into the game (before I develop the support for it... I generally don't do stuff without modders having interest in it)

Once these two pre-requisites are satisfied, I'll put it on my todo list.

Almost identically as me - I gave 5% glancing threshold and beam 50 - Heavy Gunships are something quite else than Gunships, and they do 100 damage. I've also added a special puny sound for <30 damage UFOs (those that can't one-shot even your flimsiest craft), and a special sound for 100+ damage.

Any special sound for the Battleship? That 200+ is something else entirely :P

@Meridian: Here's a more formal report than Poet's stream for what I found out with the shotgun bug so far. When you target a north or west wall, i.e., a wall in the same tile that your is standing in, and the wall is destroyed by one of the pellets, the rest tend to go wildly off in random directions. I think it has to do with the trajectory calculation targeting the unit's tile once the object is destroyed, I'm working on tracking it down a bit more explicitly.

Edit: Okay, here's the issue; once the wall is hit by the first pellet, this position, stored as firstPelletImpact is the same as originVoxel - so calculateTrajectory is trying to draw a line between a voxel and that same voxel. I'm going to try to make a special case to handle this problem, something like setting firstPelletImpact as the clicked-on tile instead if ever originVoxel and _targetVoxel are equal.

I've got a fix that seems to be working for me - I added a check for every pellet to see if its _targetVoxel is the same voxel as _origin, and if it is, switch _targetVoxel back to the first tile you clicked on. See commit here (https://github.com/ohartenstein23/OpenXcom/commit/46e05aa7e8b8e59801d48420942e063537394288).

Would it be possible to add 'move sound' as armor property? This can become useful with soldier types being dogs, drones etc., but also critical for 2x2 soldier armors. Or maybe this can added using Yankes' scripts?

Huge Kudos to Yankes and Meridian for the Merge!! You guys are awesome! I'm looking forward to the time some of these awesome new features start being back ported into the main branch. (No pressure). ;) But yeah, I was just doing a little mod checking in New Battle on an August Nightly and was already frustrated missing some of the features like quickly applying armor in with a right click. Really, the playability improvements practically make this branch a must. Cheers!

Heh. Ok, well I'll take your word for it. I can vouch for the solid Impression on my part that I was dealing with a Poorer playing experience due to being spoiled by this branch. "Perception is Reality!" ;)

Hi Meridian,OXC allows you to re-order soldiers in the craft crew menu by using the mouse wheel on the up/down buttons. OXCE+ adds the same buttons to the main soldiers menu, but the mouse wheel does not work on these. Is it possible to add that functonality?

Hi Meridian,OXC allows you to re-order soldiers in the craft crew menu by using the mouse wheel on the up/down buttons. OXCE+ adds the same buttons to the main soldiers menu, but the mouse wheel does not work on these. Is it possible to add that functonality?

Another humble request:Could we get hotkey in most screens to open the ufopaedia. "u" isn't bound to much on many screens (buy/sell, for example) and it'd be nice sometimes to be able to consult it. The middle click giving a list of item use on the sell screen is great, btw.

Another humble request:Could we get hotkey in most screens to open the ufopaedia. "u" isn't bound to much on many screens (buy/sell, for example) and it'd be nice sometimes to be able to consult it. The middle click giving a list of item use on the sell screen is great, btw.

Speaking of which, middle click on items in the stores menu (accessed from the base overview) currently does nothing. I think there's an opportunity there also.

I think I encountered a bug with the night vision. When I hold space, the game switches to night vision mode but also cycles to the next soldier.This is a bit odd already.In addition, if I press the next soldier button while keeping space pressed then it cycles through the soldiers but leaves some out (even though they have full TUs).

Questions:for DamageAlter does "toTile" affect damage to all terrain and scenery or just the ground tiles specifically?

For the respective "costAimed" modifiers it said in the documentation it can be represented as a flat rate or percentage, so that means I can have one fire mode as flat rate and another that isnt (ie, dont need to use flatrate=true anymore)?

Meridian, I noticed that after a mission, if the live containment facilities are full you get the option to transfer the excess captives to another base, but the same is not true if your stores are full. Perhaps this could be added? I think it would be a useful addition especially in light of the fact that when containment is full you get to transfer captives AND equipment.

There's something else I wanted to ask, I often find myself hitting ESC when I enabled the quick search field and decide against quicksearching after all, but this does nothing. It would improve usability (at least for me) by quite a bit if ESC canceled the quicksearch immediately.

@Dioxine: changes needed to upgrade (found so far, there may be more): - new data files from OXCE 3.5 - update Amiga font to new format - blaster launcher "waypoints" is now integer, not boolean (also note the plural) - remove "KneelButton"... there is already one in vanilla - "destroyItem: true" needs to be added where appropriate - STR_MAP_GEN_ERROR translation - missing trajectory, see below

I am gonna repeat myself but... the config file is a user config file... and should NOT be shipped with the mod.It messes up all settings and people have real problems when upgrading.That's all I have to say.

I am gonna repeat myself but... the config file is a user config file... and should NOT be shipped with the mod.It messes up all settings and people have real problems when upgrading.That's all I have to say.

I really don't like it, either. I know it's to ensure that options like Extender Accuracy are enabled, but it's a dirty way to do so. Still, this is the only way.Meridian, do you think this could be done via ruleset instead? I mean Extender Accuracy. (And if it could, it would have to be a global value, since adding extenderAccuracy: true to every weapon just don't do in such a big mod.)

I have a feature on my todo list, to allow modders to override (and make read-only) some of the user settings... mostly in the Advanced tab. So that UI settings like video/audio/shortcuts/etc. can be still changed, but game mechanics like extender accuracy or storage limitations would be enforced.

I have a feature on my todo list, to allow modders to override (and make read-only) some of the user settings... mostly in the Advanced tab. So that UI settings like video/audio/shortcuts/etc. can be still changed, but game mechanics like extender accuracy or storage limitations would be enforced.

Other than that, I don't have any good suggestions.

Well, that would be ideal. Until then, I think Dioxine won't stop distributing the file. :)

I have a feature on my todo list, to allow modders to override (and make read-only) some of the user settings... mostly in the Advanced tab. So that UI settings like video/audio/shortcuts/etc. can be still changed, but game mechanics like extender accuracy or storage limitations would be enforced.

Other than that, I don't have any good suggestions.

That would be much nicer than shipping configs indeed, but I disagree with "read only". What's the point? If someone decides to play Piratez without Extender Accuracy, that's their problem. It's a 1 player game after all. And making the option unchangeable in game doesn't even change much since you can either edit the mod ruleset or make a mod to Piratez that turns off the unwanted options. If you are stupid/are crazy/think you know better/just don't want to bother, you should be able to play how you like.

That would be much nicer than shipping configs indeed, but I disagree with "read only". What's the point? If someone decides to play Piratez without Extender Accuracy, that's their problem. It's a 1 player game after all. And making the option unchangeable in game doesn't even change much since you can either edit the mod ruleset or make a mod to Piratez that turns off the unwanted options. If you are stupid/are crazy/think you know better/just don't want to bother, you should be able to play how you like.

That's not really so simple. People almost never do things right, not because they don't want to, but because they don't read manuals, don't know how the game works, and there are a lot of chaotic elements resulting. I used to think the same as you, but then I've seen how it really is. So now I support the claim that at least some of the necessary options should be enforced initially.Or, to rephrase it: I have no problem with people changing options, or rulesets, but the correct ones should be enabled by default.Perhaps it would be best to change the .exe to make these options enabled at install - after all, who would play with vanilla accuracy? And even then, this person could change the option to fit their perverse desires. Of course it would be a gangbang committed on vanilla-ness, but you know what? I don't care.

My idea was that "MUST HAVE"s and "MUST NOT HAVE"s would be fixed by modder and unchangeable... and "SHOULD HAVE"s and "SHOULD NOT HAVE"s would be just highlighted in red maybe if different than suggested, but changeable.

Also, the "Reset to defaults" button would reset both... i.e. nothing would be red after reset.

Perhaps add support for using two configs - one that's the user's config with all their keybindings and such, then a partial config file that the mod uses to enable certain extended options and built-in mods like extender accuracy?

My solution would be:- Ruleset comes with a list of "if a moron installs this, this is what they need" config stuff in it.- This changes the default values of these options whenever that mod is active.- Upon a new activation of the mod (from the mod page, not when starting the game and looking in the config to see what mods should be loaded on startup), it also changes the active values to the defaults.

Nothing is enforced, but when starting to use a new mod, the "reboot the game to load mod" also sets the active options to what is needed. This makes a complete transition from [ vanilla with vanilla background and vanilla config ] to [ Piratez with Piratez homescreen and Piratez config ]. If the user then reviews those options, and decides that, no, Extender is crap and they don't want to use it, then they can turn it OFF. And next time they start the game, it will still be OFF because it's not a fresh start. But it was ON at the start, like it should be and ensuring that most users use the mod as intended.

Then video, audio, keybindings, debug mode (which has caused issues in the past when the config had it active and suddenly people couldn't quick save/load) and other such options can be left entirely for the user to decide on.

This is how I would do it. But honestly, I just go fish the mod from the user/mods folder of the zip file and put that into my install of OXCE+ (which runs both XPiratez and XComFiles by swapping data, user and config directories), so this is academic. Since I don't want the great (striving and arguing about what's the best way to do things) becoming the enemy of the good (doing something better than shipping configs), that's my last post on this.

Well.. I did say I wouldn't take about this more, but since you're calling me out specifically...

Yes, you activate XComFiles after playing Piratez and boom, the proper XCF options are loaded. You then decide you want to play Piratez some more, activate it and bam, proper Piratez files. How is that not convenient for like... 99% of users? The only one left would be activate vanilla and vanilla options are reset, maybe, but vanilla options are kind of bad so...

If you load a mod that doesn't have special options (say.. one that adds an extra gun and nothing else) then nothing happens. If you load a big mod with important options, the act of enabling it changes your options only the first time you enable it only. That's pretty unintrusive to me.

Especially since, if you play two big mods, the proper way to change between then is by changing user/data/config folders, not swapping in the mod page (which makes you wait to load mods twice), so the options reset would only happen once: when you start using a new mod, unlike what I described above if you are well organized.

And honestly, if you don't want to use the options a mod creator created their mod for, I think the effort should be yours to break it. It should be as easy as possible to play with the proper options, since that's the right way to play. You want to change things? Fine, but do some work yourself.

Aren't you keeping a separate OXC install for each major mod you're using??? Strange.

I know some people don't (like Arthanor), and that's all right, but I also consider it a kind of an extreme sport. :P In other words, there's no need to consider it a mainstream issue - it's 2016, so sacrificing 50 or 100 MB on your hard drive for an extra copy of openxcom is not an issue for anyone.

I have a series of scripts to tell the executable to use a different options.cfg for every major mod, and keep a vanilla copy of options.cfg with all my keybindings and video settings as a base for starting a new mod. That's why the command line options for OXC were added, no?

I guess, as Solarius pointed out, compiling on Linux and running with bash scripts to get the user/data/config folder you want for a given executable is considered extreme. Most people with Windows will just have different folders with different installs, like an XComFiles folder which comes pre-packaged with its exe, and XPiratez folder with its own exe as well, etc. Then they make shortcuts to the different exe, instead of soft links to the different scripts that launch the same exe with different folders.

It's less efficient, but indeed, what's 100MB in 2016? And what's that efficiency thing? Or those "script" and "command line" things? It's 2016! Everything comes pre-packaged and pre-arranged so all you have to do is stick your finger onto your (touch)screen, then magic happens! If it doesn't work, tell them computer wizards they're stupid because it doesn't work, then they'll fix it. ::)

I have just played vanilla X-COM for comparison purposes without major issues (a bunch of missing strings due to OXCE+) and am playing Terror from the deep now for the same reason (same thing plus it does not go well with some of Meridians custom colors in for example the production screen).

Why have a mod selection screen at all if you're not supposed to use it?

The strings can easily be added, I think someone even posted them somewhere on this forum.TFTD support (mostly just colors) will be added in early 2017.

It would definitely help if you had some boilerplate rule for that in the OP though. "Somewhere on this forum" is not such a great resource.

Also, I have to say OXCE+ is remarkably hard to find - it took me pretty long to figure out what the difference between OXCE and OXCE+ was when I first arrived on the OXC modding scene. OXCE+ is mentioned in the OXCE mod, but then searching for it yields nothing - because it's hidden in here, in a thread vaguely called "resources and mods for X-PirateZ". Personally I think this thread should be called something including "OpenXcom Extended Plus", and it belongs in the general modding forum alongside OXCE, as it's not really specific to PirateZ.

Fully agree, although this started as just a way to share mods and music and stuff from the LP, it has grown to be so much more. OXCE+ totally deserves a thread in the modding/experiment section, so others can learn more easily of it and more people can use it (I wouldn't even play vanilla UFO or TftD without it, honestly..). Furthermore, now that XComFiles also uses it, it isn't really a Piratez thing either.

Fully agree, although this started as just a way to share mods and music and stuff from the LP, it has grown to be so much more. OXCE+ totally deserves a thread in the modding/experiment section, so others can learn more easily of it and more people can use it (I wouldn't even play vanilla UFO or TftD without it, honestly..). Furthermore, now that XComFiles also uses it, it isn't really a Piratez thing either.

When time comes, I will ask for a separate "child board" like piratez or area 51... and put all info, resources and documentation into one place.Q2/2017.

Hey, got a CTD when using OXCE+ 3.5 to play a vanilla campaign. In the attached save, use the selected soldier to kill the reaper with AC-I auto shot. (The mods I'm using are to fill in some of the OXCE+ strings and improved handobs, so I don't think it's one of those) I also noticed this on a TFTD when killing 2x2 terror units sometimes, but it doesn't always happen. You can see this in my save by hitting the reaper with a single HC-HE shot, then auto shot with the AC.

I'm posting here first to make sure it's not just an OXCE+ thing before reporting as an OXC bug.

Edit: Even more weirdness - have one of the soldiers still on the skyranger with a HC kill the reaper that's farther away, then you can safely kill the close-up reaper with AC-I without CTD.

More Edit: Another terror mission, a bit more testing - it seems like if I get the kill with indirect fire or a near miss with explosives, it doesn't crash, but grenades do cause the crash. Could this be a commendations thing?

Hey, got a CTD when using OXCE+ 3.5 to play a vanilla campaign. In the attached save, use the selected soldier to kill the reaper with AC-I auto shot. (The mods I'm using are to fill in some of the OXCE+ strings and improved handobs, so I don't think it's one of those) I also noticed this on a TFTD when killing 2x2 terror units sometimes, but it doesn't always happen. You can see this in my save by hitting the reaper with a single HC-HE shot, then auto shot with the AC.

I'm posting here first to make sure it's not just an OXCE+ thing before reporting as an OXC bug.

Edit: Even more weirdness - have one of the soldiers still on the skyranger with a HC kill the reaper that's farther away, then you can safely kill the close-up reaper with AC-I without CTD.

More Edit: Another terror mission, a bit more testing - it seems like if I get the kill with indirect fire or a near miss with explosives, it doesn't crash, but grenades do cause the crash. Could this be a commendations thing?

OXC ... OKOXCE ... crashOXCE+ ... crash

I'll report to Yankes.

To reproduce, just take Thomas Muller, go down the ramp and snap shot the Reaper closer to you.

The linux build farm config has been updated to the 3.5 branch, executables are being built and will be available at the usual (https://lxnt.wtf/oxem/) place shortly. Sorry the the lag. If it would be possible to fix some kind of branch, tag or something to point to the latest release in the repository, this would not happen again.

EDIT: Also please don't hesitate to PM me if there's some problem with the builds I failed to notice.

The linux build farm config has been updated to the 3.5 branch, executables are being built and will be available at the usual (https://lxnt.wtf/oxem/) place shortly. Sorry the the lag. If it would be possible to fix some kind of branch, tag or something to point to the latest release in the repository, this would not happen again.

Thanks.3.5 is the last prototype branch... I will create one more later in Q1/2017, which should become the permanent reference point (or maybe even use master).

Would it be possible to add 'move sound' as armor property? This can become useful with soldier types being dogs, drones etc., but also critical for 2x2 soldier armors. Or maybe this can added using Yankes' scripts?

By default, the move sound depends on:- movement type (if walking, play different sound depending on the surface (=tile/map data) being walked on... there are always two sounds played on different movement phases; if flying, just play default flying sound)- unit's move sound override (doesn't work for xcom soldiers as they are not "units"... if bigger than -1, play sound with that id... e.g. tanks, floaters or snakemen)

I have added moveSound to armor entries too, which will override the unit's move sound.

Hey Meridian, got another CTD, with map generation this time. Playing a TFTD game, wait for Trition-1 to trail the small USO target to its landing site, then CTD on confirm landing site. The log says there was at least 1 node culled in the Triton map, so could this be related to the node issues I've been hearing about?

I have feature suggestion regarding globe labels:- If the labels get a bit long they are cut on both ends (see screen shot). It would be good if there were unlimited space for text or at least a bit more.

- It would be even better if we could set extra labels anywhere on the globe for naming geological formations or anything else. For earth like planets this is not needed, because everybody can recognize, for example, Africa by its shape. However for new fictional planets it would be useful. For example one could put labels with "Himalaya or Shieldwall" on a rock formation or "Eternal Wastes" on ice formations.

I have feature suggestion regarding globe labels:- If the labels get a bit long they are cut on both ends (see screen shot). It would be good if there were unlimited space for text or at least a bit more.

I have a small feature suggestion for Ufopedia:Currently you can use the "rect_text" command to place text anywhere on the screen. However, this works only for CRAFT entries.It would be useful to enable the "rect_text" command also for "type_id 7" ufopedia pages (text + background image) to make nice looking entries.

# STR_SURRENDER_UFOPEDIA: "{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}{NEWLINE}Sensible enemies can surrender, if their morale was broken. Units which have panicked or were stunned at least once count as broken. Insensible enemies are often good to eat." STR_SURRENDER_UFOPEDIA: "Sensible enemies can surrender, if their morale was broken. Units which have panicked or were stunned at least once count as broken. Insensible enemies are often good to eat."

Yeah, my bad, title was also using the text_width parameter... I just made it 310px wide now (5px padding left and right)... I don't see a reason to limit the title width.

Will upload a fixed version in cca 1 hour.

EDIT: also, in your example, you don't have Type = 7 (imageText)...that's armor entry (Type = 5) if I see correctly... or not?EDIT2: I guess not, just imageText with a custom palette? The buttons confused me...

The sleep and wounded indicators on unconscious units are very useful. Is it possible to define a 'burning indicator'?I think I had a few unconscious units who burned to death, because I had no indicator.

It is the only way to let the player know, where a certain region is. In vanilla you do not have to put a label on Africa, because everyone knows where Africa is.On the desert planet you have to put in region labels, to show the player where the region is. Sadly region labels do not exist, so I have to use the country labels.

So, if there were region labels, how would they differ from country labels?Different color?

It would be even better if we could set extra labels anywhere on the globe for naming geological formations or anything else. For example one could put labels with "Himalaya or Shieldwall" on a rock formation or "Eternal Wastes" on ice formations.

Labels won't do you much good since there is no way of telling where are its' borders. Using countries as regions makes more sense on a custom planet IMO...

I may use polylines for the borders. Polylines are independet of country and region definitions.Using countries as regions is not so easy, since alien missions are defined only by regions and the regions also appear in the graph screen.

Meridian, I noticed that after a mission, if the live containment facilities are full you get the option to transfer the excess captives to another base, but the same is not true if your stores are full. Perhaps this could be added? I think it would be a useful addition especially in light of the fact that when containment is full you get to transfer captives AND equipment.

That would be immensely useful. Does it work with unresearched weapons? Would make the early game more varied since you could see if a weapon was good before researching it, at which point you generally have something better.

Maybe some way to see if a unit is considered illuminated or in darkness, though? In Piratez this can be very hard to tell because there are some really weak light sources (looking at you, Boomfruit), yet for spotting purposes the engine only distinguishes between "fully illuminated" and "in complete darkness".

Yeah that'd be too much info as well. Need to play it carefully, don't take risks and get some experience. Build your skill up. I'm all for playing aides, but not to the point where the game tells you everything (like Meridian said, it's not the Commandoes).

Eg. I wouldn't mind an option to see enemy paperdoll and the weapons he's holding (but not his inventory) when selecting him (m-click?). I know the handobs by heart, but it could help many players in threat assesment (and add an opportunity to see them paperdolls outside of MC). The enemy could also have a bleeding icon on them if they're bleeding. I'm assuming just that your soldiers should be easily able to see all these things.

Yeah that'd be too much info as well. Need to play it carefully, don't take risks and get some experience. Build your skill up. I'm all for playing aides, but not to the point where the game tells you everything (like Meridian said, it's not the Commandoes).

Eg. I wouldn't mind an option to see enemy paperdoll and the weapons he's holding (but not his inventory) when selecting him (m-click?). I know the handobs by heart, but it could help many players in threat assesment (and add an opportunity to see them paperdolls outside of MC). The enemy could also have a bleeding icon on them if they're bleeding. I'm assuming just that your soldiers should be easily able to see all these things.

The current hit indicator (CTRL+H) is useless half of the time, some improvement would indeed be good.Main issue: reaction fire overwrites your fire.I think there are some edge cases as well.

The idea behind the hit log was:1/ to find out if you hit or missed... in some cases it is hard to see visually (e.g. bows)2/ to find out if a particular weapon is doing any damage at all to a particular enemy (mostly when you're seeing a new enemy and/or using a weapon for the first time)

I never meant hit log to be a way of counting how much damage has been done to the enemy already... that can be considered cheating and is discouraged.Normal usage of hit log is maybe a few times per mission (or less)... definitely not after each shot.

Yeah that'd be too much info as well. Need to play it carefully, don't take risks and get some experience. Build your skill up. I'm all for playing aides, but not to the point where the game tells you everything (like Meridian said, it's not the Commandoes).

Eg. I wouldn't mind an option to see enemy paperdoll and the weapons he's holding (but not his inventory) when selecting him (m-click?). I know the handobs by heart, but it could help many players in threat assesment (and add an opportunity to see them paperdolls outside of MC). The enemy could also have a bleeding icon on them if they're bleeding. I'm assuming just that your soldiers should be easily able to see all these things.

Voila.

M-click to open.Works only on visible units (i.e. no black clicking) or in debug mode.

L-click or R-click to close.M-click on weapon to show Bootypedia.

Background is configurable, sprite name "AlienInventory".

EDIT: bleeding indicator is the same as for inventory big obs

EDIT2: after some discussion, added the name as well... it's spoiled on other places anyway, no big deal

The idea behind the hit log was:1/ to find out if you hit or missed... in some cases it is hard to see visually (e.g. bows)2/ to find out if a particular weapon is doing any damage at all to a particular enemy (mostly when you're seeing a new enemy and/or using a weapon for the first time)

I never meant hit log to be a way of counting how much damage has been done to the enemy already... that can be considered cheating and is discouraged.Normal usage of hit log is maybe a few times per mission (or less)... definitely not after each shot.

Voila.

M-click to open.Works only on visible units (i.e. no black clicking) or in debug mode.

L-click or R-click to close.M-click on weapon to show Bootypedia.

Background is configurable, sprite name "AlienInventory".

EDIT: bleeding indicator is the same as for inventory big obs

Bravo! Looks fantastic.... Do brigands (or highwaymen, can't recall) have a chance to spawn with a self charging laspistol? Referring to your picture. Because one game I got really lucky in the early game and looted one but can't remember where.

I never meant hit log to be a way of counting how much damage has been done to the enemy already... that can be considered cheating and is discouraged.Normal usage of hit log is maybe a few times per mission (or less)... definitely not after each shot.

I do use it way more than that. Not after each and every shot (if an enemy dies there's no need), but definitely to check if I'm doing damage at all with my weapons. Also to count how many targets I hit with AoE attacks.

Do brigands (or highwaymen, can't recall) have a chance to spawn with a self charging laspistol? Referring to your picture. Because one game I got really lucky in the early game and looted one but can't remember where.